As an Internet consultant and columnist for the Newtown Bee, a
Connecticut newspaper, I recently received a phone call from my friend,
Prof. Jerome Zeifman, saying, “My God, they’re
filtering out WorldNetDaily!”
He was distressed to learn that a multinational corporation is now
filtering out his WND commentaries.
On May 19, WND published an article in which he was critical of “The
multinational missile and bomb manufacturers whose stock rose when we
started bombing Yugoslavia — and rose even higher when we bombed the
Chinese Embassy.”
In a May 24 article, he wrote: “The ominous ‘military-industrial’
complex described by President Eisenhower in the 1950s has mushroomed
[and now] supplies weaponry to both sides in virtually every armed
conflict around the world, from international and civil wars to domestic
uprisings and military adventures.”
In a June 9 article, he charged President Clinton and Secretary of
Defense Cohen with war crimes in Yugoslavia.
After that, he heard from a WND reader employed by a large defense
contractor. The employee had previously accessed WND on the company
computer during coffee breaks. Access is now blocked. The employee’s
reaction was, “I suspect you and WND are now on the White House’s
enemies list.”
After receiving Prof. Zeifman’s call I remembered that, at the time
of Watergate, he and the Washington Post were on the enemies list. If
he and WND are on a current list, he now enjoys the unique distinction
of making both lists. At the same time, his WND columns have also
become popular with Interneters who use our local library — where I am
on the website committee.
Sadly, filtering is common on company-owned computers. Also, a
filtering battle is now raging in Washington. Congressional leaders are
in a legislative stampede to “prevent another Columbine.” On Feb. 9,
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced The Internet School Filtering
Act, S. 1619 — co-sponsored by Senators Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., Dan
Coats, R-Ind., and Patty Murray, D-Wash.
The bill would deny all federal funds to libraries or schools that do
not “filter or block matter deemed to be inappropriate for minors.” At a
May 20 hearing McCain warned,
- Instructional manuals on bomb making, and drug making and
purchasing are available over the Internet. Simple word searches using
“marijuana” turn up web sites providing instruction on how to cultivate,
buy and consume drugs. Type in “pipe bomb” and a myriad of sites on how
to make, and how to achieve the maximum carnage with a bomb are
immediately accessible.
Although a few libraries use filters (and are fighting lawsuits
brought by the ACLU), most do not. In opposition to the McCain bill the
American Library Association and most librarians refuse to filter. As
stated by Alice Knapp, Director, Bethel Library in Connecticut,
- We are against filters. All forms of constitutionally protected
speech must be preserved. The Internet certainly qualifies here, even
if some of the material may be distasteful or inappropriate for young
children. Under careful parental supervision in the home, a filter may
be appropriate. However, in a library a filter is the wrong answer.
On the other side of the filtering fence stands radio
personality, Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Still smarting from the “dirty
dozen” pictures of her in her twenties posted on the Internet by a
former boyfriend, Schlesinger now rails against potential pornography in
libraries. In a Salon.com article titled “Dr. Laura targets the new
Sodom: Libraries,” she is quoted as saying, “The ALA is boldly, brashly
contributing to sexualizing our children, and now the pedophiles know
where to go.”
According to critics who call her the “Leona Helmsly of the
airwaves,” if she were to visit a library she might find a growing trend
where mothers and daughters enter a chat room connected to the Net from
adjoining cubicles. “Tag Team Chatting sessions have the best filter of
all, a concerned parent,” says Alice Knapp.
Next, I also checked with Henryk Michnowicz, Director of Information
Technology, Newtown School District. He favors filtering for children,
and said, “These kids have been using computers almost since birth,”
adding that, “Some are insidiously clever.”
Exploring the subject further I learned that most institutions of
higher learning oppose filtering. For example, Yale’s University Policy
on Freedom of Expression states,
- The primary function of a university is to discover and
disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this
function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its
walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that a university
must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of
intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery
clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think
the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the
unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at
intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state
unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen
to those views.
After that, aware of Prof. Zeifman’s prior career as chief
counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, I sought his views on the
differing policies. His response was:
- I wholeheartedly support the anti-filtering positions of our
local chief librarian, Alice Knapp, the American Library Association,
and Yale University.
Much as I am opposed to filtering for older persons, I am pleased
with the filtering policy of the local schools. I have also advised my
son and daughter to filter the home computers used by my grandchildren.
Certainly, parents and teachers have constitutional rights to protect
young children and students that overrides those of purveyors of
pornography, obscenity, and violence.
On a constitutional level, Jefferson said, “the government that
governs best governs least.” Also the First Amendment states that
Congress shall make “no” law limiting freedom of speech.
For me, the joy of the Internet is that it is free. Sadly, freedom is
considered dangerous by those who fear it. I hope that our senators and
representatives will have sufficient confidence in our local ability to
govern ourselves to vote “no” on a uniform federal filtering act such as
S. 1619.
I’m opposed to the homogenization of our culture by Washington. As a
former resident of San Francisco, I also believe that its parents and
teachers should be left free to have different cultural standards than
those I now support in Newtown.
Then I asked, “Should schools anywhere teach standards of
political correctness and filter out protest?” His prompt response
was, “If they try, they should get sued, and lose — and their lawyers
will benefit, but at the expense of taxpayers.”
As for me, I’m glad to have a neighbor who is a fellow writer and
taxpayer — and the grandpa of six local kids who will soon be on the
Internet. After all, both writing and instruction in Internet
technology are my own special interests.
Send comments to Bob Brand.
