Posted on 3-5-2002
No
Stopping Porn?
By JOHN SCHWARTZ, NY Times 2 May 02
One of the most thorough reports ever produced on protecting
children from
Internet pornography has concluded there are no simple solutions
to the
problem. ``Though some might wish otherwise, no single approach
--
technical, legal, economic, or educational -- will be sufficient,''
wrote
the authors of the report, ``Youth, Pornography and the Internet,''
which
was released Thursday by the National Research Council. ``Rather,
an
effective framework for protecting our children from inappropriate
materials and experiences on the Internet will require a balanced
composite
of all of these elements, and real progress will require forward
movement
on all of these fronts.''
What might seem to a rather bland conclusion to a massive effort
of
research and discussions with policymakers, educators, librarians,
parents
and children and others in visits to schools and libraries around
the
nation is actually a surprising stand, said Alan Davidson, associate
director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a high-tech
policy
organization in Washington. ``The report dares to be un-sexy,''
he said.
``It does not call for legislation to solve this problem,''
despite a
strong push in Congress to pass laws requring such technology
tools as
pornography filters in schools and libraries. One such law,
the Children's
Internet Protection Act, is currently being challenged in federal
court by
a coalition of librarians and civil liberties groups; a decision
in that
case is expected this month. Recommending a broad approach ``is
not nearly
as satisfying as passing a law or pointing to a technology,''
Mr. Davidson
said, ``but it is probably, in the long run, the most effective
way to
protect children online.'' In fact, former attorney general
Richard
Thornburgh, who led the project, predicted in a preface that
its
conclusions ``will disappoint those who expect a technological
'quick fix'
to the challenge of pornography on the Internet.''
The language of the report is meticulously balanced, but wryly
conclusive.
Filters designed to block naughty sites, the report explained,
``can be
highly effective in reducing the exposure of minors to inappropriate
content if the inability to access large amounts of appropriate
material is
acceptable.''
An opponent of filtering said that she was pleased with the
report. Judith
F. Krug, director of the American Library Association's office
for
intellectual freedom, said she had only seen the executive summary
of the
report, but applauded the committee's approach. ``It's evenhanded,''
said
Ms. Krug, who testified before the committee. ``It confirms
the A.L.A.'s
view that protecting children online is complex, and it's going
to demand
complex and varied solutions. In other words, filters are not
going to be
the solution.''
The report compared the problem of protecting children from
online risks to
dealing with a more mundane hazard of daily life. ``Swimming
pools can be
dangerous for children,'' the authors wrote. ``To protect them,
one can
install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All of
these measures
are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can
do for one's
children is to teach them to swim.'' Herbert Lin, the director
of the
study, said, ``We think it's the most comprehensive report that's
ever been
done'' on the subject. Even those who disagree with its conclusions
agreed
with that evaluation. Bruce Taylor, the president and chief
counsel of the
National Law Center for Children and Families, said that the
report will be
the basic document for judges and lawmakers approaching these
issues for
the forseeable future: ``This is going to be the topic of conversation,
the
book on the coffee table, for the next two years,'' he said.
Mr. Taylor, who also testified before the committee, said he
was
disappointed that the group did not make strong recommendations
on
``techno-gizmos of their own,'' that he said might be developed,
such as
age identifiers that would follow minors through cyberspace.
Such ideas
have been criticized as impractical by Internet engineers, but
Mr. Taylor
said that a strong push from the committee might have helped
moving things
forward. ``Parents can't create those protocols and protections,
but how
hard would it be for industry to do it?'' he asked.
Mr. Lin, echoing a statement by Mr. Thornburgh, said that the
process of
studying the issues shook the preconceptions that each participant
brought
to the process. Many of the participants, he said, believed
at the
beginning ``if only people would just do this - whatever `this'
is - the
problem would be all over. Nobody realized how complicated the
process
was,'' he said.
Mr. Taylor, said that despite his own disappointment in the
conclusions of
the report, ``It's at least going to be a truthful presentation
of what
each side has been saying - so we can keep arguing about it.''
|