CENSORSHIP OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS ARE HURTING OUR STUDENTS 1
Censorship of Web 2.0 Tools are Hurting our Students
Kelly Wescott
San Jose State University
Abstract
Web 2.0 is a recently developed term used to describe collaborative web content such as blogs, wikis, podcasts and social networking sites. Many of these applications have been shown to increase creativity, communication, sharing, and collaboration among users which are skills outlined in new educational standards. Research has shown increases in problem solving skills, information literacy and judgment as well as intelligence and long term memory in students who used these tools. Censorship through filters within schools due to laws such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) has greatly limited the use of these tools in schools. Research has shown that filters are not effective ways to keep children safe. Education through acceptable use policies and instruction on proper internet are the key to ensuring appropriate use. This paper looks at Web 2.0 tools, internet censorship laws, new educational standards, and reasons for and against filters. It goes on to show that increased use of Web 2.0 tools leads to increased information literacy, creativity, and collaboration among peers which are all skills that students will need in order to be a successful individual in the 21st century.
Censorship of what some consider offensive material has been an issue over the years and new laws and controversies have developed due to the increasing availability of the internet. There have been many laws passed regarding censoring offensive material for children with the most recent being the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). This act requires the use of filters within schools even though research has been found them to be ineffective at blocking all harmful information and also improperly blocking many sites, including Web 2.0 applications. Web 2.0 is a recent term developed to describe the new web content available, and its applications meet many of the criteria developed by new literacy and educational standards. This paper will look at Web 2.0 tools, internet censorship laws, educational standards and reasons for and against filters. It will show that permitting usage of Web 2.0 tools in schools allows students to meet new educational standards and leads to greater literacy in students, which in turn allows students to be more prepared and ready for the 21st century.
Web 2.0
According to Main, Web 2.0 was first coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 and since that time has become a commonly used term (Main, 2008, p.149). One way to describe Web 2.0 is by pointing out some of the differences from Web 1.0. Web 1.0 was a static environment in which users could only “locate, read and evaluate” (Brambach, 2009, p.13) information, and in order to create web content, had to be very skilled in programming language. This extremely limited the amount of people who could write new web content. The implementation of Web 2.0 has greatly changed the internet environment. The new web content is easy to create and anyone with basic literacy skills can become a publisher of it (Main, 2008, p.150). Web 2.0 also offers a social aspect, which allows sharing and collaborating with others, and in turn offers many advantages to both students and teachers. Many of the tools require students take an active participation role and some lead to 24/7 classroom availability (Harris & Rea, 2009, p.141). Some of the different Web 2.0 applications include blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, podcasts, and Flickr. These applications all have benefits which include promoting collaboration and interaction among students, and improving critical reading and writing by giving students experience in responding in a constructive way (Harris & Rea, 2009).
In order to gain a greater understanding of these applications, definitions are given. According to Main, blogs are online diaries which can be updated at any time by the author (Main, 2008, p.150). Posts are listed chronologically by dates with the most recent entries being on top. Readers of a blog can post discussions or comments to any entry but cannot change the author’s original post. Wikis are group created websites which are an, “open shared space for collaborative content contribution and editing” (Main, 2008, p.151). These differ from blogs as users can add pages and delete previously written content at any time. Another definition given by Main is RSS feeds, which are also known as really simple syndication feeds (Main, 2008, p.152). These feeds allow users to follow multiple webpages from a single reader page (Main, 2008, p.152). The reader’s homepage contains a list of items with links (previously specified by the user) to webpage’s and allows users to see what pages have been updated without going to each individual page. Podcasts are audio programs that are pre-recorded and can be played over the internet at any time, and Flickr is a photo sharing site which allows users to tag photos. The use of these applications in schools has been limited and in part can be related to internet censorship laws.
History of Internet Censorship
In the past, the government has made multiple attempts at protecting children from internet content. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was one of the first censorship laws relating to the internet and was passed in 1996 (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.8). It was designed to prohibit the sending or posting of obscene material through the internet to individuals under the age of eighteen (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.8). It was followed by the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998. The purpose of this law was to ban commercial websites from posting material that was deemed harmful to minors (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.8). The Supreme Court ruled that both of these laws were unconstitutional due to violating the first amendment (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.8).
After meeting these barriers, the government found a funding loophole and was able to pass the CIPA in 2000. This law was established to protect minors from obscene and potentially harmful online material (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.9). It also required that any public school or library that received either Universal Service discounts or funds under the Library Service and Technology Act had to install filters on their computers (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.9). The government had found a way to control the internet by controlling the funds that schools could receive. According to a report from the Department of Education, by 2001, ninety-six percent of public schools had implemented the filters (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.9). This was the first year the law took effect and the report showed how great an impact the filters had on schools, as the majority immediately implemented. Many schools relied on these funds and were forced to abide by the policy, whether in agreement or not, so they could continue to educate and provide technology resources to their students.
Information Literacy
Over the years the definition of informational literacy has changed and become more complex due to the new digital and visual technologies available (American Association of School Librarians [AASL], 2007). In 1998, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defined literacy as the ability to read and write a simple sentence (Carter, 2009, p.114). Although very basic, the definition was sufficient to define the term at the time. The UNESCO updated their definition in 2005 to encompass the complexity of literacy. It stated,
Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, and compute using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potential, and participate fully in community and wider society (Carter, 2009, p.114).
This definition includes the skills individuals would need in order to be able to function effectively in the twenty-first century and is one of the arguments given by advocates against filters in schools. By allowing these filters, various sites and applications that can assist children in meeting requirements of this definition are blocked.
Standards
Organizations such as the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) have developed new literacy standards that focus on the needs of the 21st century learner (AASL, 2007). These standards incorporate new technologies, such as blogs and wikis, and imply that students will not be prepared for the future if they do not utilize them. Some of the common beliefs shared by the AASL are that “technology skills are crucial” and “equitable access is a key component for education” (AASL, 2007). It can be seen through these common beliefs that the AASL is a promoter of both unrestricted access to information along with educational opportunities in respect to technology. The following literacy standards are given by the AASL: “1.Inquire, think critically and gain knowledge. 2. Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and create new knowledge. 3. Share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democratic society. 4. Pursue personal and aesthetic growth” (AASL, 2007, Section 1-4). These standards are similar to UNESCO’s definition of literacy as they both involve critical thinking and collaboration. Both skills can be developed through the many features of Web 2.0. For example, one of the criteria of standard three from above indicates students must participate in groups both in person and through technologies (AASL, 2007). Tools such as Skype, which is an application that allows users to make free calls to other computers, can allow students to have virtual meetings, which can be more convenient and allow access other to peers both nationally and internationally. Baumbach agrees and believes that, “If school library media programs are to be relevant to today’s students, we must investigate these digital tools, use them ourselves and teach students to use them effectively (Baumbach, 2009, p.13). If students do not have access to websites that allow sharing and collaboration such as Wikipedia and Flickr, then this standard can only be partially met and educators are failing to prepare our next generation for the future.
Filters
Objections
Over the years, there have been multiple individuals and agencies that have presented significant reasons as to why filters are not appropriate. According to Heins “They [students] need access to information and ideas precisely because they are in the process [of] becoming functioning members of society and cannot really do so if they are kept in ideological blinders until they are eighteen” (as cited in Perry, 2008, p.108). Children need to be exposed to different types of technologies so they can ask questions and learn in order to become a productive member of society. If children are constantly sheltered through filters then they are missing opportunities to reach their full potential.
Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background or views (American Library Association Council, 2004, ¶ 1). The implementation of filters within schools is in direct violation of this article as filters block access to information by students due to their age. The ALA further goes on to say the ability to “retrieve, interact with, and create information” posted on the internet, in schools and libraries, by minors is an extension of their first amendment rights. (American Library Association Council, 2009, ¶ 1). The implementation of filters violates the first amendment rights of children as they do not allow their access to all internet information.
Judith Krug, former Director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom states, “The problem with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act (NCIPA) is that they limit the ability of libraries to fulfill their reason for being. Filters are mechanical devises unable to think or make judgments” (Krug, 2006, ¶ 4). Schneider also agrees that filters conflict with the basic functions of libraries (as cited in Chapin, 1999). Libraries are supposed to be a place where people have access to any information they want, so they can be free to choose their own viewpoints. Filters do not allow for exceptions and mistakenly exclude some educational web content and therefore are debilitating to users’ needs.
Krug went on to indicate that even filtering companies admit that they are unable to block all offensive material and they also improperly blocked good websites (Krug, 2006). A study by Richardson et al., which tested six common filtering products on the strictest setting used in schools, found that twenty-four percent of health information sites were blocked (as cited in Kotrla, 2007, p.51). Another study done by Electronic Frontier Foundation found that for every one webpage that was blocked by a filter, one or more was blocked improperly (as cited in Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.10). Some examples of blocked websites include general health, safe sex practices, and sexual identity sites (Jaeger & Yan, 2009, p.7). These studies paint a bleak picture, as they show many appropriate websites are being improperly blocked. At this time, filtering companies have no answer to this problem as new websites are created each day and it is impossible to continually update in order to ensure all “inappropriate” information is blocked.
Another problem, cited by Krug is that filters “create a false sense of security for parents” (Krug, 2006, ¶ 4 Bullet 4). Parents may believe that their children are completely safeguarded while at school and therefore improperly educate them on safe internet use. This can be seen in the evidence presented above which shows that many sites are not blocked. It is also the case that some students may have the knowledge to bypass filters and access any content they wish (Ioertscher, 2009). This research strengthens the argument that filters are ineffective and may not be the best solution.
Forces Behind
There are a few main driving forces behind the use of filters and Males believes that the country’s “perceived fear” (Males, 2000, ¶ 1) is one of these. He states that, “the visceral fear whipped up over imagined cyberduction of young minds and bodies by witches lurking in the dark woods of the Web has spawned a lockout and filtering industry...” (Males, 2000, ¶ 1). He goes on to support this theory through a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They have reported that there are about ten to twelve cases of abduction and molestation of young internet users per year (Males, 2000). This number is seemingly low in comparison to the number of children that are reported missing each year, which is around eight hundred thousand (Sedlak, Finkelhor, Hammer, & Schultz, 2002, p.5). Males believes the problem is that each “cyberduction” is given a big headline which causes the community at large to believe that these instances are more prevalent (Males, 2000). Katz is another promoter of this theory and has gone as far as coining the phrase “Media-Phobia” (as cited in Males, 2000). The term is described as an anxiety disorder in which the person develops unwarranted fears and is not concerned about real problems (as cited in Males, 2000). Both Males and Katz are strong believers that filters are damaging to children and leave them unprepared for the future.
Another motivating force behind the filters and banning of Web 2.0 tools is the fear of the unknown. Since Web 2.0 applications are relatively new, many teachers and administrators are not educated in the ways that these tools are beneficial, so their solution is to completely ban them. An example of this in our recent history can be seen by the development of the calculator by Texas Instruments (Farr, 2009). According to Farr, many schools were greatly opposed to calculators and argued that they did not have a place in the classroom (Farr, 2009). The widespread use and requirement of the calculator today makes this original opposition seem very farfetched. This example shows that humans are creatures of habit and do not initially like change. New ideas and technologies take time for people to learn and grow accustomed too.
Kortla further goes on to state that very little research has been done to refute or reinforce the assumption that children are harmed by sexual explicit material (Kotrla, 2007, p.50). There have been a number of correlational studies, but these studies do not show chronological relationships or allow for other possible influential factors. For example, it has been found that exposure to violence in the media correlates to aggressive behavior in adolescents, but this study does not account for other factors that may have played a role, such as home environment or lifestyle (Kotrla, 2007, p.51). It also does not tell whether aggressive adolescents are prone to watch more violent programs or if watching more violent programs leads to aggressive adolescents.
Heins agrees with Kortla and indicates that research on this topic has been relatively inconclusive and cites information from the case, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (Heins, 2001, Section A ¶ 1). During this case multiple researchers gave a brief to the Supreme Court indicating “most scholars in the field of sexuality agree that there is no basis to believe sexually explicit words or images…in and of themselves cause psychological harm to the great majority of young people” (Heins, 2001, Section A ¶ 1). A workshop for the surgeon general in 1986 also found that there is no scientific evidence to support the fact that children are harmed by pornography (Heins, 2001, Section A ¶ 2). The evidence above shows that censorship tactics such as filters may not be doing anything to protect children from the “so called harm” in which they were put into place for. Additional evidence is seen in a study on the book, “Mommy, I’m Scared” which documented anxiety in children exposed to nonsexual and nonviolent TV and movies such as Sleeping Beauty and Alice in Wonderland (Heins, 2001). This study shows that children can be affected by any type of stimuli and that attempting to figure out and plan what will affect them may be an ongoing endless task.