Internet Filtering Software

The Corporation of the City of Cambridge wants to force the Cambridge Public Library to install and use Internet Filtering Software on their computers. Councillor Tucci put forward the following Internet Filtering Proposal found in the City of Cambridge's Council agenda of February 9, 2009.

Councillor Tucci - Internet Filtering Software On Computers

Recommendation
WHEREAS there is no law in Ontario prohibiting pornography and other sexually explicit material from being viewed on computers in public schools and libraries;

AND WHEREAS there are public schools and public libraries that do not use
internet filtering software on computers that blocks such inappropriate material;

AND WHEREAS significant changes have occurred with respect computer technologies, software and programs that could filter access to inappropriate, explicit sexual content;

AND WHEREAS parents in the province of Ontario have the right to ensure
their children are protected from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet in their public schools and libraries;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of The Corporation of the City of Cambridge petitions the Honorable M. Aileen Carrol, Minister of Culture, the Honorable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario and, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require all public schools and libraries in Ontario to be required to install internet filtering software on computers to avoid viewing of sites with inappropriate, explicit sexual content;

AND FURTHER THAT the motion once approved be forwarded to all MPPs representing Waterloo Region, to the Leader of the Official Opposition, to the Leader of the 3rd party and, through AMO, to all other municipalities for their consideration.

In 2004, a Cambridge man was arrested for using a city library computer to download child pornography, according to a story in The Record. In the fall of 2008, the Cambridge Public Library Board twice rejected the call for the use of filtering but promised to review the situation as technology advances. The City of Cambridge refused to force the library to purchase filtering software in January 2009. Cambridge Public Library is the only library system in Waterloo Region that doesn't use filters. The issue has been raised once again. Cambridge Council voted 4-3 to support Tucci's recommendation, calling on the Province of Ontario to force libraries to use Internet blocking software.

Cambridge MPP Gerry Martiniuk is pushing a private members' bill (Bill 128) that would put internet filtering rules in place. Private members bills are rarely passed into law. Councilor Gary Price, who sits on the Cambridge library board, pointed out that libraries have a mandate to provide free access to legal information and that filtering software can block legal sites as well as questionable ones.

Below is the text from Bill 128 which is relevant to schools and public libraries:

Education Act
Every school board is required to ensure that every school of the board has in place technology measures on all of the school’s computers to which a person under the age of 18 years has access. The technology measures must do the following:

1. They must block access on the Internet to any material,including written material, pictures and recordings, that is obscene or sexually explicit or that constitutes child pornography.

2. They must block access to any form of electronic communication, including electronic mail and chat rooms, if the communication could reasonably be expected to expose a person under the age of 18 years to any material,including written material, pictures and recordings, that is obscene or sexually explicit or that constitutes child pornography.

3. They must block access to any site on the Internet or to any form of electronic communication, including electronic mail and chat rooms, if the school has not authorized users of the computers to access the site or the communication or if the site or the communication could reasonably be expected to contain material that includes personal information about a person under the age of 18 years.

A school is required to have a policy on who are authorized to use its computers to which a person under the age of 18 years has access and to monitor the use that persons under the age of 18 years make of those computers.

Public Libraries Act
The Bill amends the Public Libraries Act to make amendments that are similar to those that the Bill makes to the Education Act, except that the duties of a school board are those a board with respect to every library under its jurisdiction and the duties of a school are those of a public library.

Read an article which gives alternatives to internet filtering.


The Pelham Public Library challenges you to take the Banned Book Challenge. This challenge will run until June 30, 2009.

A Question of Censorship

Fahrenheit 451 welcomes guest blogger Heather Johnson.

The word censorship conjures up an image of a pair of scissors, but no, the chopping and patching together of movies to come up with a suitable ratings certificate is not the subject under debate here; we’re talking something that has a further reach than movies – Schools. History has seen its share of censorship over the centuries and decades. Conspiracy theories abound about self-professed leaders and despots burning entire libraries to prevent information from being passed on to the generations to come. In the recent past, we’ve seen controversy dog novels both as benign as the Harry Potter series and as inflammatory as Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons.

I’m sure there are existent rules and policies that decide what one should censor and what one should allow when it comes to teaching children. But even after a lot of research on this contentious subject, all I’m left with are more questions rather than answers I was seeking:

• What is it that makes human beings decide on the right to information?


• In the case of children, who decides what’s right and wrong in terms of information that’s accessible by or taught to students?


• Are libraries and curricula the only sources of children’s information?


• By censoring schoolbooks and restricting the kind of books allowed in the school library, are we doing our children a disservice or are we protecting them?


• In this age of free and ready information on the Internet, is it worth the time, effort and hassles associated with implementing censorship at schools?


• The human psyche is programmed to want what is denied to it – so the more you stress that an activity is forbidden or a subject taboo, the more the adolescent or child wants to explore it for himself. So when a topic or book or subject is censored from the curriculum or library, word gets around, and isn’t it true that the kids are all agog with curiosity to know what the fuss is all about?


• Rather than censoring information outright, is it a better option to teach children to process and assimilate it and decide for themselves if it’s right or wrong or if there are any acceptable shades of grey in between?


• Who decides at what age children should be allowed access to any information without any form of censorship? Parents or teachers? If both sets of adults are unable to reach a compromise, who wins? Is it the voice that’s the loudest or the one that has more say in the child’s upbringing?


• How long can we keep protecting our children anyway? Isn’t it better that we taught them about touchy subjects like sex instead of having them learn from their peers who are not experts on the subject or from other sources that are not the best teachers?

It’s difficult to reach a satisfactory consensus or conclusion on so contentious a subject; maybe it’s a matter of individual opinion and varies from one person to another.

This article is contributed by Heather Johnson, who regularly writes on the topic of instant degrees. She invites your questions and writing opportunities at her personal email address: heatherjohnson2323 at gmail dot com.

For Kids

The American Library Association (ALA) has a publication called Kids, Know Your Rights. It is subtitled A Young Person’s Guide to Intellectual Freedom and it is directed at children. Although it is more relevant to the United States, there are aspects that might be helpful for classroom situations. It explains the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights for US children, as well as the role and responsibility of the library when one of their books is challenged.

Below is an excerpt:

An opinion is a belief in something. Everyone has
the right to have any opinion on any topic. Sharing
different opinions with others leads to new ideas. The
freedom to speak your opinion is protected by the
Constitution, and the freedom to learn from someone
else’s opinion is a privilege you should protect. When
you listen to others’ opinions, you may change your
mind, or you may believe in your own opinion even
more. It is impossible to know everything, and most
things we learn come from someone else. Always feel
free to speak and always be willing to listen. If you
respect and support other people’s rights to share their
ideas and beliefs, they will in turn respect and support
your rights. One of the greatest gifts we can give is to
listen and to appreciate each other’s differences.
Freedom of Speech is both a great freedom and a
great responsibility.

A list of titles for further reading is included. Both fiction and non-fiction titles for children are included.

Top Ten Silly Reasons

HarperCollins set up a site for Banned Book Week 1995 which features a number of their books which have been banned over the years. Included is a silly top ten list. While it is good for a laugh, it is sobering to think that these children's books have been challenged for these reasons.

Top Ten Silly Reasons
to Ban a HarperCollins Children's Book

1. "Encourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them."
(A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein)

2. Children shouldn't be "scared by materials they read in school."
(Scary Stories by Alvin Schwartz)

3. The book "portrays the U.S. government as lacking in intelligence and responsibility."
(The Fragile Flag by Jane Langton)

4. The book "teaches children to spy."
(Harriet the Spy by Louise Fitzhugh)

5. "The little boy did not have any clothes on and it pictured his private area."
(In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak)

6. "Children are not ready for illustrations and conversation about jockstraps."
(The Dallas Titans Get Ready for Bed by Karla Kuskin)

7. School board members were concerned about a "sad ending."
(Alan and Naomi by Myron Levoy)

8. Challenged as a summer reading assignment because, "it sounds like pretty explicit stuff."
(The Contender by Robert Lipsyte)

9. The book is "demented."
(The Long Secret by Louise Fitzhugh.)

10. "Promotes cannibalism."
(Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein)

from the Banned Books Resource Guide by Robert P. Doyle, sponsored by the American Booksellers Association

Flat Stanley Once Banned But Carries on in Literacy Campaign

The story of Flat Stanley by Jeff Brown came out in the early 1960s and according to an article about the delightful world of Flat Stanley, it vanished from libraries and bookstores for a brief time, banned because adults thought children would find the idea of the bulletin board falling and flattening Stanley too disturbing for children.

Now, in his 40s, Flat Stanley lives on with the Flat Stanley Project, an ongoing international literacy campaign launched in 1995 by Canadian schoolteacher, Dale Hubert, who taught third-grade in London, Ontario. According to Wikipedia, the Flat Stanley Project is meant to facilitate letter-writing by schoolchildren to each other as they document what Flat Stanley has done with them. Dale Hubert received the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in 2001 for the Flat Stanley Project."

Munsch, Munsch, Munsch

Robert Munsch is a Canadian children's author whose books have faced many challenges.

Thomas' Snowsuit, by Munsch, was challenged in Lloydminister, Alberta/Sask. because the teacher felt that the story undermined the authority of all school principals. The principal agreed and removed the book from the school library. Another school district followed suit. The cross-dressing of child and principal has raised objections.

Munsch had a librarian call to report that three of his books had received complaints in her school district and she was considering removing them. What she believed was an "organized movement," turned out to be two families in two different schools who had complained about the same books.

Authors also face pre-publishing censorship. Annick Press wanted Munsch to soften up The Paper Bag Princess. Elizabeth, the princess punches Prince Ronald in the nose. Munsch did not give in to pressure from Annick who believed there would be problems with censors. Following its publication, some parents complained that Munsch's The Paper Bag Princess was anti-family because the princess refuses to marry the prince. Other adults have not liked that Elizabeth calls Ronald a bum.

An article entitled Good libraries don't: The Censorship of Canadian Picture Books, tells of a number of challenges to picture books including those of Robert Munsch. In 1988, Munsch reported that, "I have to go pee!"—the repeated line in his book I Have to Go was replaced with, "I have to go to the bathroom."

Munsch said in a 1988 interview:

Kids love talking about peeing and farting, but they do not like stories where the mother says, "Go to hell!" to the father. That's a major taboo violation, and kids do not want an adult doing that. But to have an adult saying "bum" or "pee" that's great. "Underwear" is good too!

Munsch's Giant; or Waiting for the Thursday Boat was challenged in Middlesex and Welland Counties, Ontario for depicting violence towards God. Giant was returned to Middlesex school libraries with the restriction that, "because of the book's religious implications, it won't be in the primary curriculum and teachers won't be permitted to read it to children." Munsch stated that he thought people might be upset over the book on religious grounds but that their letters indicated that they were more upset over the violence in the book. According to a University of Saskatchewan Challenged List, objections to Giant were made on the basis of religion; morality; God portrayed as a little girl; angry Giant says he wants to kill God. Sources: (Roberts, 1996); (CBC4Kids, 2001).

Good Families Don't was the next book Munsch was working on when Giant was being challenged. Good families don't what? Fart. "God knows what the reaction to that is going to be!" thought Munsch. I am unable to find documentation on challenges, so let me know if you have read them. I don't doubt they are out there.

According to a University of Saskatchewan Challenged List, Murmel, Murmel, Murmel faced a challenge. The objection cited is "Human reproduction." Source: (Roberts, 1996)

I am unable to find documentation on Love you Forever but it seems that people either find the idea of the son rocking his elderly mother on his lap touching or weird and creepy. One review on Amazon from an ordinary reader says this,

I was horrified when I read I Love You Forever - another children's book by Mr. Munsch that results in a mother using a ladder to break into the house of her adult son to rock him in his sleep. Because my daughter liked the book, I taped all the wierd [sic] pages together to save the better parts of the story.

Please let me know if you know of a challenge of this book. My feeling is that adults are reading far too much into this touching story. This parent "save[d] the better parts of the story" or so she would like to think.