Dr. Roma Harris has graciously shared a copy of the letter she sent to the London Public Library board to request delegation status for their June 20 meeting. At this meeting, the board discussed the library’s move to install filtering software on the majority of its adult public-access computers. Drs. Roma Harris and Sam Trosow were both granted delegation status. You can read all about this issue in posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
I was in Edmonton yesterday for some training and while the trainer union-bashed I read parts of Alvin Schrader’s book Fear of Words: Censorship and the Public Libraries of Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Library Association, 1995). His study was based on a survey he sent to public libraries asking for information about their local policies and procedures around challenged books and intellectual freedom. He cites Lester Asheim who in 1953, as dean of the Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago, delivered a paper on intellectual freedom to the American Library Association’s Second Conference on Intellectual Freedom. In this “landmark” paper, (”Not Censorship But Selection” first published in the Wilson Library Bulletin, 28 (September 1953), 63-67, now on the ALA website), Asheim wrote:
Selection, then, begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control. Selection’s approach to the book is positive, seeking its values in the book as a book, and in the book as a whole. Censorship’s approach is negative, seeking for vulnerable characteristics wherever they can be found—anywhere within the book, or even outside it. Selection seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to protect—not the right—but the reader himself from the fancied effects of his reading. The selector has faith in the intelligence of the reader; the censor has faith only in his own.
The principle is true for Internet filtering, no? Filtering software is a tool for thought control and it has no faith in the intelligence of the Internet user. And librarians who install filtering software (especially on adult computers!) have no faith in the intelligence of their patrons. I reckon “internet filters” should be renamed “internet blinders” because they make whole parts of the Internet invisible. A filter is too benign a word when intellectual freedom is at stake.
Lester Asheim also said, “I still believe that the best solution to the problem of access is to add positively to the store of ideas, not negatively to reduce it” (cited in Schrader 14).
-SIO
**********
June 15, 2007
Secretary
London Public Library Board
251 Dundas Street
London, Ontario
N6A 6H9
Dear Secretary to the Board:
I am writing to request delegate status at the next meeting of the Board so that I might express my concerns about the proposal to increase the level of filtering of public access computers at the London Public Library. I’m aware that filtering software is already in use for computers in areas of the library where children’s services are delivered. However, I’m concerned that extending the use of filtering technology to computers used by adults may inadvertently limit access to some websites that are relevant to users who are in search of health information.
For several years I have been a member of an international team of researchers who are studying how people search for and use health information. Our work is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am also the lead investigator of a research project that is exploring how people living with HIV/AIDS, their family members and health care providers, exchange information about the disease in rural communities. This work is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Briefly, research about health information-seeking shows that lay people rely heavily on the Internet to look for health information. For instance, among the 90% of all North American 15-24 year olds who have ever searched online, 75% have searched for health information, almost more than any other single use. Half have looked for information about a specific disease, such as cancer or diabetes, and 44% have looked up information online about pregnancy, birth control, HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases.
Almost inevitably, looking online for health information will lead searchers to some sites that are pornographic because health-related searches are about the human body. Although content control or ‘filtering’ software is intended to block access to objectionable websites, the practice of filtering is imprecise, no matter which products are used. A major concern is whether filtering systems result in ‘overblocking’, i.e., blocking of legitimate websites because the filter incorrectly classifies them as inappropriate. Health information is particularly vulnerable to overblocking because the terms used to conduct the search refer to parts of the body and because lay searchers may not always refer to their body parts using medical terminology and may rely instead on colloquial language. Philip Start, a Professor of Statistics at the University of California at Berkeley reports that, “generally, if a filter blocks more of the sexually explicit websites, it will block more of the clean websites†(http://ice.citizenlab.org/mirror/copa-censorware-stark-report.pdf).
The public library can be a very important point of access for people in search of health information, particularly for those who do not have home computers or private access to the Internet. Because of the sensitivities often associated with health concerns, particularly those related to sexually transmitted diseases, sexual practices, and sexual orientation, people searching for information about these topics are very unlikely to look to library staff for help in locating information sources and they are also unlikely to alert staff if they find themselves blocked from accessing ‘questionnable’ websites. I respect the staff of the London Public Library and I realize that they have taken a number of steps to apply the intended software in ways that are only moderately restrictive. However, because one of the categories of material to be blocked is ‘pornography’, I remain concerned about the potential impact on legitimate users of the library. Research on internet filtering suggests that the sites most likely to be blocked by even moderate attempts to filter pornography are those concerned with sexual health and women’s health.
For these reasons, I request that Board members weigh carefully whether the public library’s role as the community’s only ‘neutral’ source of information is endangered by the censoring effects of filtering software. I appreciate that filtering is appropriate in children’s sections of the library. However, restricting access by adult users who rely on the public access computers because passersby might be uncomfortable about what appears on the screens is worrisome. I recommend that efforts be renewed to reconsider the physical arrangements of the unfiltered public access computers to reduce the likelihood that passersby will be ‘subjected’ to unpleasant images or, at the very least, that a larger number of unfiltered machines be made available and that access to these machines be made easy, in an unstigmatized fashion, and that availability to these machines not require any staff intervention.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Roma Harris, Ph.D.
Professor Faculty of Information & Media Studies
The University of Western Ontario