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" <dstoneat_private> To: <declanat_private> 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" <chunterat_private> Organization: University of Pennsylvania To: declanat_private 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" <tonyat_private> To: <declanat_private> Cc: <dburtat_private> 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 22:18:43 PST