 
By Robert Vamosi The United States has challenged nations that prevent their citizens from getting full access to the Internet--and rightly so. But we must also review our own policies. Did you know, for example, that under the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the U.S. government withholds some funding from libraries and public schools that don't filter Internet access? This law needs to be changed if the United States wants to help open up the Internet abroad--and avoid hypocrisy. The great cyberwall of China Recently, China made headlines for building a national firewall to keep out Internet content it feels would cause "social disorder." But it is not alone. Myanmar (formerly Burma), Saudi Arabia, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and other nations have all experimented with content filters for political, cultural, or religious reasons.
Yet, even as the United States condemns Internet censorship abroad, our government limits the content available to its citizens here at home. The CIPA requires libraries and schools to filter Internet content in order to qualify for federal funds to help pay for computers and Internet access. (Free speech proponents are currently challenging this legislation, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to hear arguments.) While I don't think public libraries and schools should freely distribute pornography on their desktops, current filtering technology requires organizations to block specific sites and, therefore, is subject to misuse. Filters gone wrong Content filtering is particularly inappropriate in schools, which are supposed to teach children how to analyze information and form their own opinions. Schools aren't supposed to promote specific ideological agendas. But we've seen cases in which they do just that--using content-filtering software. For example, former high-school student and school Webmaster Daniel Silverman recently wrote an article on Salon about how his school, Foothill High School in Tustin, California, used filters to block Planned Parenthood's Web site while allowing students access to the Christian Coalition's site.
A new piece of legislation, the Global Internet Freedom Act, further reveals inconsistencies in the U.S. approach to Internet censorship. This bill, which, ironically, was introduced by Representative Christopher Cox, whose district includes Tustin, California, would create new technologies to defeat Internet censorship and advance human rights efforts in repressive regimes. However, though the Global Internet Freedom Act places $50 million in taxpayer funds toward defeating jamming and censorship abroad, it says nothing about such problems here in the United States. Neutral Internet The Web has no political borders. Let's keep it that way. Regarding U.S. schools and libraries, I suggest that we adopt the honor system and trust that people will not jeopardize their Internet privileges to view inappropriate content. The same is true on a national level: countries should arm their people with information--whether the government agrees with it or not--instead of preventing citizens from seeing the world outside their borders. By removing restrictions on money meant for schools and libraries online, the United States can lead by example and help open the Internet to everyone in the world. What do you think? Should Internet censorship be allowed in the U.S. or abroad? Why or why not? TalkBack to me!
Senior Associate Editor Robert Vamosi covers hoaxes, viruses, and security threats for CNET Reviews. Have a question for him? Let him know! |
 |
Next steps |
 | |
| |
•
Find DSL in your own area |
• Download security and encryption apps |
• Protect yourself with a firewall or an Internet security suite |
• Shopper.com's most popular security and encryption apps
• Download security and encryption apps |
• Protect yourself with a firewall or an Internet security suite |
• Shopper.com's most popular security and encryption apps
 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 
|
|||
|
