Internet filters - known colloquially as
porn filters - are regularly being
discussed in Nordic public libraries. As
recently as May 2006 a major conference
in Finland addressed this subject,
and in Denmark an extensive debate
has been going on since 2001 and
several conferences have been held. The
latest development is that the Ministry
of Culture in Denmark has made an
offer to all the public libraries of financing
the installation of filters. The
Ministry’s reason for doing this is
primarily the protection of children.
The offer has once again fuelled the
debate on porn filters, the quality of
these and whether we need them at all.
The offer is interesting. Firstly, the
Ministry of Culture is prepared to
spend several million DKK on a filter
product which the libraries may choose
to install – or not. Secondly, the offer is
made to institutions that generally
speaking find it hard to recognise the
problem of pornography in the libraries.
Danish as well as foreign studies show
that the extent of pornographic displays
on the public libraries’ homepages
is a minor problem. Most libraries
have experienced a few cases that
caused some reflections, but on the
whole it is not a big problem. People
do not visit the library to find pornography.
The investigations revealed that
the problem was not pornography as
much as the rather noisy behaviour of
young people using the PCs.
Up till now only a few Danish public
libraries have installed filter products.
Problems of misuse have been handled
and prevented by placing PCs where
the staff can keep an eye on them, the
users can keep an eye on each other,
and ethical guidelines for use and misuse
have been produced.Many libraries
have segmented the use of PCs so that
some PCs with completely free access
can only be used for 15 minutes,
whereas more extended use requires a
reservation. Some reservation systems
require identification of the user, and
the more advanced systems time out
the user after for example one hour’s
usage. A technical solution has thereby
been found to the problem of some
users not leaving their PC on their own
accord.
At the height of the debate in 2001 and
2003, it was conducted on several
levels. First of all there was the principal
level which had to do with the
restriction in access to information.
The debate also took place on a technical
level, often linked to the first
which concerned the quality of filters,
including blockage of admissible information
and lack of blocking of for
example pornographic material. The
third level of the debate dealt with the
protection of children and young
people in the public space.
A test of Danish and foreign filters was
conducted by the Royal School of
Library and Information Science. The
conclusion – in brief – was that some
filters were pretty poor, but that the
best ones were in fact rather good. The
most advanced filters were able to
discard almost 100% of pornographic
material. The same filters discarded
only about 5% of permissible material.
The permissible material was selected
from homepages on sex information,
health and sickness. So it was a question
of pages that often contain words
also to be found on pornographic
homepages. The extensive test of the
filters was done in 2003 and presented
at a major conference, and the results
were published.
The results have not, however, made an
impact on everybody, as we are still
seeing the same arguments now about
the quality of the filters and particularly
the discarding of permissible
materials as an argument against the
Ministry of Culture’ offer.
The principal argument that has to do
with freedom of expression and unlimited
access to information, I honestly
believe to be rather less convincing in
this context. The public libraries have
always made selections regarding printed
media and in principle also do so
in relation to digital resources when
creating portals, guidelines etc.
The third argument deals with the relation
between the public space and the
protection of particularly children
against pornography. This is the Danish
minister of culture’s primary
argument in favour of the decision of
offering filters to the libraries. Looking
at the actual extent of the problem, it is
obvious that the essence of the argument
is primarily symbolic. There is
nothing wrong in that. Symbolic arguments
and actions help forming awareness,
perceptions and legitimacy. In
many ways it is a strong signal to give
out that a protection has been established
in the public libraries’ public
space. The signal does in no way preclude
the public libraries from assuming
the educational functions in relation
to children and the young which
many library members of staff see as
the solution instead of filters. There is
plenty of work to be done.
It is still interesting, though, that the
offer of free filters comes at a time of
general agreement that pornography is
not really a big problem. Other internet-
related problems might well be
bigger, but they have so far only formed
a small part of public library
debate about the Internet. They are
phenomena like ‘instant messenger’
and chat, games on the net, dating pages
etc. which children and young
people use more and more and - according
to the daily newspapers - often
in an inappropriate way.
The filter product, which has been
chosen by the Ministry of Culture on
the advice of the Danish National Library
Authority, is in fact so flexible
that it can also be used for blocking
this type of web pages. I should
mention that the filter product can be
handled and ‘adjusted’ both locally and
centrally, and it can be installed in a
variety of PCs. Sound technological
arguments therefore exist that the filter
can be installed locally in such as way
as to live up to the individual library’s
policy, guidelines and general climate.
The thought might occur that the talk
about pornography and filters in the
public libraries introduce concepts that
can be used as symbolic expressions for
many types of material and behaviour,
which it might be difficult, for various
reasons, to put a name to without stigmatising
certain groups. Or to put it
another way - when talking about
pornography in the libraries we might
in fact be talking about a number of
phenomena that have to do with unfamiliar
and unwanted behaviour and
Internet content, which make us feel
uneasy, but which can be difficult to
verbalise in a politically correct way.
It is possible that the offer of filters
reflects an at any rate partly symbolic
policy, but this does not prevent the
public libraries from using the filter
products in a sensible way and use
them in a kind of marketing and
branding directed at worried parents,
where the convincing argument would
be that the public library’s PCs are a
guarantee that children and young
people are not exposed to pornography,
misuse of dating pages and illegitimate
communication on chat pages.
Basically there is nothing wrong with
technological solutions to social and
behavioural problems.
It is also desirable for the libraries to
take part in an unprejudiced effort to
test and assess the quality of filters in
relation to an ever more unruly Internet.
They have the right professional
background for doing so.
Translated by Vibeke Cranfield