FC: ALA replies to Politech, says filtering survey is imperfect

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous message:

"About 43 percent of public libraries filter Internet, survey says"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03012.html

---

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:24:41 -0600
From: "Deborah Caldwell-Stone" <dstone () ala org>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: About 43 percent of public libraries filter Internet, 
survey says

Declan,

Library Journal was careful to note its sampling numbers and
methodology in its article.  Mr. Burt's excerpt failed to include this
information.

Your readers should know that the Library Journal's survey is based on
the responses of 355 libraries who volunteered to respond to a
questionnaire mailed to a sample of 2000 libraries - a response rate of
18%.  Thus, the "43% of libraries" reported to be filtering  actually
represents 152 of 355 libraries.   To put these numbers in context,
there are 15,994 public libraries (including branches) in the United
States.

Cordially,

Deborah Caldwell-Stone
Deputy Director
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
www.ala.org/alaorg/oif

---

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 14:05:46 -0400
From: "Christopher D. Hunter" <chunter () asc upenn edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: About 43 percent of public libraries filter Internet, 
survey says

Declan,

David Burt omits one important finding from the Kaiser survey:

DOES FILTERING IMPACT TEENS' SEARCHES FOR LEGITIMATE HEALTH INFORMATION?
One concern about Internet filters is whether this technology may block
young people's access to health content. Indeed, among 15-17 year-olds
who have sought health information online, nearly half (46%) say they
have experienced being blocked from sites they say were
non-pornographic. Among the topics they were researching when blocked
were sexual health topics such as HIV, other STDs, or birth control (15%
of all those who were blocked), cancer (8%), and web sites on sexual
orientation (2%).

Full Report: http://www.kff.org/content/2001/20011211a/GenerationRx.pdf

Chris

---

From: "Tony Dye" <tony () bluetree ie>
To: <declan () well com>
Cc: <dburt () n2h2 com>
Subject: RE: About 43 percent of public libraries filter Internet, survey says
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:54:12 -0000

I know, I know... don't feed the trolls! But still...


[snip]


And more interesting filtering facts from a Kaiser Foundation Study:

Pornography and Internet Filtering
Among all 15-24 year-olds:
* Two-thirds (67%) support the law requiring Internet filters at schools
and libraries.

I wonder, out of those 2/3rds of 15-24yr-olds, how many could give an
impromptu 1.5 minute explanation of the 1st Amendment. Or, how many are
aware of the stastics regarding effectiveness of filtering software. I'd
say, from my experience with your average 15yr old, MAYBE 3% could give the
speech, and probably less than 1% have any knowledge of the current
filtering debate.



* Two out of three (65%) say being exposed to online pornography could have
a serious impact on those under 18.

Argh. What's a serious impact? Does getting aroused count as serious? And
why is it significant that your average 15-24yr-old (who must be assumed to
have no knowledge of psychology whatsoever) thinks it "could" have an
impact?




* A majority (59%) think seeing pornography on the Internet encourages young
people to have sex before they're ready.

How many of that majority, I wonder, think that's a good thing? I wonder how
it looks boys v. girls. Also, for Pete's sake, it's not like 99% of
15-24yr-olds aren't already encouraged to have sex from 16 million other
non-interactive sources where you must take some action to AVOID being
exposed, rather than internet "exposure" where you have to take overt action
to TRIGGER an "exposure".



Among the 95% of all 15-17 year-olds who have ever gone online:
* Seventy percent have accidentally stumbled across pornography online, 23%
"very" or "somewhat" often.
* A majority (55%) of those who were exposed to pornography say they were
"not too" or "not at all" upset by it, while 45% were "very" or "somewhat"
upset.
* A third (33%) of those with home Internet access have a filtering
technology
in place there.


Having been a regular (read: dedicated) websurfer since 1995, I think I
might have well-and-truly 'stumbled' onto porn maybe twice. That leads me to
wonder: how many of that 70% were looking for MP3's or warez when they
'stumbled' into the porn?

These numbers also make for some interesting possibilities that I'd bet the
study never explored, such as:
How many of their claimed 70% accidental exposure group also overlap into
the 33% with home filters installed, or the 76% who say they have filters at
school?
How many of the 55% who weren't upset also belong to the 65% who think it
could have a serious impact on them?
How many of the 36%(see below) who've been blocked from legitimate sites
think school/library/home filters are a good idea?


I find it interesting that Mr. Burt didn't mention some other interesting
statistics in the Kiaser health study: 46% of 15 to 17yr-olds who have
looked for health info online say they've been blocked from it by filtering
software! Topics searched for include HIV and other STDs, Birth Control (15%
were blocked looking for this), cancer (8%), music or art (4%), and sites on
sexual orientation(2%). In fact, 36% of ALL kids with filters have been
blocked from non-porn sites.

Also, 25% of kids say they know how to get around their blocking software,
and 35% say they know someone who can do it. Surely, these must be different
kids than the ones who think porn could have a 'serious' impact on them...

25% of kids think online porn HELPS you be better prepared for sex, and 27%
think it helps them set healthy expectations for their sexual relationships!
IMHO, if that's not an indictment of the respondent pool, I don't know what
would be.

And listen to the actual question about porn having a 'serious
impact'...it's written specifically to skew towards the negative response
[my emphasis added]: "Which of the following statements comes closer to your
view? Would it be one, (being exposed to pornography on the internet would
have a serious impact on ***kids under 18 years old***), or two (***young
people*** being being exposed to pornography on the Internet is no big
deal)?" Now, if you're 15yrs old, who does "young people" refer to?
Yourself? I'd say no... if I'm 15, a 'young person' is 10, maybe 12. So
there's no way I'd say it's no big deal for "young people" to be exposed to
porn. Even in my own mind, "kids under 18" refers to high school kids, and
"young people" is my 6yr old daughter. That's a very bad question, IMHO.

All in all, I'd say that this study is basically useless for finding out
anything at all about whether filtering is a)good, or b)Constitutional. It
is rather informative, though, insofar as it gives you a decent glimpse into
the contradictory nature of teenage sexual opinions. It's also pretty
effective in demonstrating that the "porn is BAD" message has gotten out,
whereas the "filtering is broken" and "filtering is unconstitutional"
messages haven't as much of an impact. Luckily, 15-17yr-olds don't vote.

Heck, most 18-24yr-olds don't vote either.

-Tony

(As always, you're welcome to reprint!)

--- 




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------