HomeIntellectual Freedom Issues Related Links Kaiser Study

Contacts: Frank DiFulvio / Larra Clark
202-682-8410 / 312-280-5043

ALA News Release
For Immediate Release
December 10, 2002

Click on the button to the left to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view and print this and other PDF files available on the OIF Web site.

New study confirms Internet filters fail to block much pornography, deny important health information to public: American Library Association

Education is the only way for children to safely navigate the Web (Washington, D.C.) — The American Library Association (ALA) today renewed its call for a greater focus on Internet safety education in light of a new study that demonstrates Internet filters fail to block 13 percent of pornography sites while denying access to important health information. The ALA made its remarks as part of panel gathered by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation to discuss the results of their new Internet filtering study.

"Most parents would not trust their children to a baby sitter who only does the job some of the time — and they shouldn't trust a mechanical device to keep their children safe," said ALA Washington Office Director Emily Sheketoff, who represented the association on the panel at the National Press Club. "Filters provide a false sense of security that children are protected when they are not, but education provides children with the skills to safely and effectively navigate the Internet for a lifetime of learning and enjoyment."

In its study "See No Evil: How Internet Filters Affect the Search for Online Health Information," the Kaiser Family Foundation tested general health, sexual health and pornography Web sites against seven filtering products set at three different configurations. At the least restrictive level, the study showed filters allow through as much as 13 percent of pornography while incorrectly blocking an average of 1.4 percent of general health sites and 9 percent of sexual health information. Incorrect blocking increased to as much as 50 percent at more restrictive levels.

An earlier Kaiser study indicates that 70 percent of 15-17 year-olds have used the Internet to look up health information, including 40 percent who have researched sexual health issues such as birth control or sexually transmitted diseases (Kaiser Family Foundation, Generation Rx.com, 2001).

"See No Evil" is the latest among many studies in recent years. Two recent comprehensive studies on Internet filtering from the National Research Council (NRC) and the Commission on Online Child Protection (COPA), both commissioned by Congress, concluded that the most effective and least intrusive way to protect children from objectionable material on the Internet is through online information resources and family education programs.

"We would not accept a filter that blocks 10 percent of American newspapers with the argument that people can always get their information from the majority of newspapers that don't happen to be blocked," said Geoffrey Nunberg, a senior researcher at the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. "What the Kaiser report really seems to show is that even at their least restrictive settings, filters incorrectly block hundreds of thousands of useful or innocuous sites. The First Amendment does not merely protect free speech on average."

In May, a three-judge panel of circuit and district judges ruled unanimously that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates the use of Internet filters in public libraries, is unconstitutional. Throughout the trial, every technical witness testified to the unreliability of Internet filters, and how they often deny access to relevant health, political, social and other information for adults and children alike — while failing to block undesirable material for minors.

The Court also held that less restrictive alternatives exist to allow public libraries to protect children. The Court found that public libraries can—and indeed that many do—use the following less restrictive alternatives: (1) filters offered as a choice for families to use for their own children at the public library; (2) education and Internet training courses; (3) enforcement of Internet use policies by library staff; and (4) placement of terminals, use of privacy screens or utilization of recessed monitors.

For more information about the ALA's CIPA challenge, please go to www.ala.org/cipa.

Links to non-ALA sites have been provided because these sites may have information of interest. Neither the American Library Association nor the Office for Intellectual Freedom nor the ALA Washington Office necessarily endorses the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites; and furthermore, ALA, OIF, and WO do not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on these sites.