Protecting Children Online Like Any

Protecting Children Online Like any forms of advancement, computer and information technology are double-edged swords. On one hand, they offer new opportunities for learning and self-expression. However, the same technology also threatens the safety of children, exposing them to inappropriate content and online predators. This paper argues that given these safety concerns, special measures should be taken to protect children from these Internet predators. Protection legislation In 2001, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA) was signed into law.

The mandate of this act is to protect children form the myriad of "inappropriate material" available on the Internet. Public institutions such as schools and libraries must ensure that "technology protection measures" are in place on all of its computers with Internet access. These protection measures include filtering software to screen out inappropriate content (Reilly 2001). Supporters of this measure argued that the task of keeping children safe from online belongs to everyone in society, not just to parents. After all, many children are much more tech-savvy than their parents.

Increasingly, they surf the Internet in public places, such as cafes and their school libraries. This makes it difficult for parents to monitor the Internet use of their children. Furthermore, supporters of this law argue that the dangers of unsupervised Internet use are very real. In addition to sexually-explicit content, many teenagers have reported supporting their drug habits via the Internet. Many chatrooms are full of drug dealers and pedophiles who know how to recognize potential young victims or customers ("Teens, Technology and Drugs" 2006).

The goal of legislation such as CHIPA is targeted towards ensuring a safe online experience for children. Censorship concerns Despite these dangers and the intent of this legislation, however, such protection laws have many critics. Privacy advocates argue that law enforcement authority and court rulings regarding piracy and copyright have dealt tremendous blows to individual civil liberties regarding online and Internet activities. Most people do not realize how much personal information can already be gleaned from the Internet.

People unwittingly share information about themselves when they send e-mail, visit a website or buy merchandise online. The installation of filtering software adds to these concerns (Reilly 2001). Other critics have argued that CHIPA and steps such as the installation of filtering software constitutes censorship. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has charged that such filtering software may be a violation of the First Amendment. Imposing a sort of "rating system" on the Internet interferes with the freedom of expression.

Such software could also violate a youth's right to a wide variety of information (Reilly 2001). Finally, many critics question the effectiveness of such filtering technologies. Some charge that filtering technologies have a tendency to "overblock" sites. In high schools, for example, some children complain increased difficulty in conducting research on topics like breast cancer and safe sex. Another reported difficulty conducting a search on the term "Mars exploration," because the letters formed the forbidden term "sex." These difficulties interfere with the intent of sharing information over the Internet (Reilly 2001).

Overriding concerns Critics do have valid concerns, and were able to articulate these all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, rightly ruled that filtering technology remains an effective solution to keeping children away from violent, pornographic or otherwise dangerous content. The issue of "overblocking" can easily be remedied by a librarian or administrator. Future problems can also be prevented as libraries and schools further categorize material into designated safe categories, such as educational or medical research (Rehnquist 2005).

These filtering software, especially when conducted by libraries, do not constitute censorship. After all, libraries already perform a "gatekeeping" function when they select books and other physical material for their libraries. It would certainly be inappropriate for public libraries to spend taxpayer dollars on pornographic videos. Schools and.