|
|||||||||
|
![]() |
Preface
Youth, pornography, and the Internet. The combination of these elements is a subject on which individuals from all walks of life--parents, teachers, librarians, school administrators, library board members, legislators, judges, and other concerned citizens--have thoughts and strong opinions. Those with products and services to sell are also interested in and concerned about the subject. Some from the online adult entertainment industry fear that efforts to restrict the access of children to certain kinds of sexually explicit material on the Internet will impinge on what they see as legitimate business opportunities to market their products and services to adults. Those with technology-based protection systems to sell hope to capitalize on what they see as a growing market for solutions to the problem, however that may be defined. Views in this subject area are highly polarized. Because strongly held values are at stake, the political debate is heated, and often characterized by extreme views, inflammatory rhetoric, and half-truths. Against the backdrop of intense lobbying in the halls of Congress and many local school and library board meetings in communities across the country, a document assembling in one place the different dimensions and pros and cons of approaches that might be taken to address the problem can help to conduct the debate over "what to do" in a more informed manner. Thus, one purpose of this report is to provide a reasonably complete and thorough treatment of the problem and potential solutions that airs all sides. In addition, different communities or groups of readers are likely to be interested in different aspects of this report.
ORIGIN OF THIS STUDYIn November 1998, the U.S. Congress mandated a study by the National Research Council (NRC) to address pornography on the Internet (Box P.1). In response to this mandate, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB), responsible within the National Research Council for issues at the nexus of information technology and public policy, engaged the NRC's Board on Children, Youth and Families (BOCYF) to form a committee with expertise diverse enough to address this topic. The resulting committee was composed of a diverse group of people, including individuals with expertise in constitutional law, law enforcement, libraries and library science, information retrieval and representation, developmental and social psychology, Internet and other information technologies, ethics, and education. CSTB, with input from BOCYF, developed a proposal that was responsive to the legislative mandate. As a result of discussions with the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Department of Education, and various private companies in the information technology industry, the study's statement of work was adjusted to include non-technological strategies as well as technology options for protection and to address "pornography" as the primary systematic focus of the study's exploration of inappropriate content, with other areas addressed as appropriate for context-setting purposes, explored incidentally rather than systematically. Further, the negotiated statement of work noted that the final report would place the issue of concern in context, provide a range of useful alternatives for constituencies affected by this issue, and explicate the foundation for a more coherent and objective local and national debate on the subject of Internet "pornography," but would avoid making specific policy recommendations that embed particular social values in this area.
METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATSAs with most controversial issues, the reality of both problem and solution is much more complex than the rhetoric would indicate. To complement the expertise of its members and to understand the issue more effectively, the committee took a great deal of testimony over the course of its study. In its plenary sessions, it heard testimony from some 20 parties with differing points of view and expertise; these parties are identified in Appendix A (which provides the agendas of the various plenary sessions). It held two workshops to explore both technical and non-technical dimensions of the issue; summaries of these workshops were published prior to the publication of this report.1 Members of the committee also visited a range of communities across the United States to hear first-hand from the various constituencies--not the least of which were the children involved. Thus, the committee conducted seven site visits from April through June 2001 in a variety of geographical locales: Austin, TX, on April 3-4; Greenville, SC, on April 17-18; Salt Lake City, UT, on April 26-27; San Diego, CA, on May 2-3; Blacksburg, VA, on May 8-9; Coral Gables, FL on May 30-31; and Shelton, Bristol, Kent and Hamden, CT, on June 1-2. Finally, the committee issued a call for white papers and received about 10 (all of which are posted on the project Web site at <http://www.itasnrc.org>). The committee noted the existence of other work and reports on the subject, such as the Final Report of the COPA Commission,2 the report of the House Committee on Commerce on the Children's Online Protection Act,3 Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse from the Consortium on School Networking,4 and various efforts supported by the Bertelsmann Foundation (e..g., Protecting Our Children on the Internet5). And, because the committee was, by design, composed of individuals with varying expertise and perspective on the issues, the committee learned from itself--through argument and discussion. As a result of this process, it is fair to say that every committee member came to understand the issue differently than when he or she first joined the study--and left behind any notion that an instant solution could be found. This study is not a comprehensive study of safety on the Internet, nor even one on safety for children on the Internet. The primary emphasis of this study is on approaches to protect youth from pornography--or more properly, sexually explicit material deemed inappropriate for minors--though the relevance of these approaches to some other kinds of material deemed inappropriate receives some attention as well. This emphasis does not reflect a consensus of the committee that inappropriate sexually explicit material is--or is not--the most important safety issue on the Internet for children--but rather the fact that such material was a central element in the legislative mandate to the committee. This study is not a study on the impact of exposure to such material, nor does it come to a consensus on this question. Committee members had, and continue to have, a variety of different views. Committee members do share common views about the undesirability of exposing children to some kinds of sexually explicit material, but they do not share views about other kinds of sexually explicit material. But coming to consensus on a world view regarding all sexually explicit material was not the task given to the committee, and the consensus on the material contained in this report--which focuses on things that communities can do to help themselves--indicates that such agreement is not necessary for making informed decisions. Note also that this report mentions a variety of companies, products, services, and Web sites. These references are for illustrative purposes only, and their mention should not be taken by readers as an endorsement in any way.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS REPORTThis report surveys the technical, legal, law enforcement, educational, and economic dimensions of the problem of coping with materials and experiences on the Internet that are inappropriate for children. In addition, it describes a range of social and educational strategies, technology-based tools, and legal and regulatory approaches that can help children to use the Internet more safely. Thus, this report provides a framework within which responsible adults can develop their own approaches--embodying their own values--for the children in their care. This study does not make recommendations about what communities should do about the problem. Although this study explicates the factors that can enter into choices about appropriate approaches to protecting kids from inappropriate sexually explicit material on the Internet, the choice of any particular approach implies a particular weighting of these various factors, and hence embeds a particular value choice, which the committee was not charged to make. Rather, the study emphasizes the information needed to conduct a reasoned discussion among those seeking to decide what to do. Any given community's decision will be shaped by the values it brings to that decision-making process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMany people contributed to this complex study and comprehensive report. The committee took testimony from many individuals at its plenary sessions and at site visits. The site visits in particular were valuable precisely because they gave committee members a sense of life "in the trenches," allowing them to put into appropriate perspective the input received during plenary sessions and contributed in white papers. (Appendix A provides the agendas of all meetings and site visits.) Talking to children about their perceptions and reactions to sexually explicit material on the Internet is obviously a sensitive and delicate undertaking, and the committee is deeply grateful to those individuals and schools that allowed their students, teachers, and administrators to speak freely with committee members and staff. These site visits would not have been possible without the assistance of people at each locale. The committee and staff would like to acknowledge the following individuals:
Most of all, the committee appreciates the parents and students for their frank participation in the focus group sessions that took place during the site visits. In the initial stages of project development, David Eisner from America Online was instrumental in convening representatives from the online industry to discuss the project. As a result of these meetings, the NRC came to understand the concerns of this community in greater detail. The committee members also extend their appreciation to the numerous presenters who briefed them during the project. Of particular interest was a special session at the committee's December 2000 workshop with community teams. Team members were charged with listening to the expert presentations and then applying what they had learned, as well as their own experience, to a hypothetical scenario. Committee members engaged community teams as they reported their thoughts about application. The purpose of this activity was to provide information to the committee regarding how the expert but largely theoretical testimony might be interpreted and applied in practical terms by education and library professionals working in the field. For their participation in this activity, the committee thanks Paulette Armstrong, Carol Bird, Stephen Boyles, Trina Brown, Andy Carvin, Deb Elder, Marjorie Geldon, William Giddings, Wayne Hartschuh, Marge Medd, David Milhon, Irene E. Millett, Sandra Patton, Jeana Pulis, Mike Westmoreland, Arthur Wolinsky, and in particular, for their enormous contribution to orchestrating the community teams, Sara Fitzgerald and Keith Krueger of the Consortium for School Networking. The committee also appreciates the hundreds of suggestions and constructive criticisms provided by the reviewers of an early draft of this report. That input helped the committee to sharpen its message and strengthen its presentation. Within the NRC, the lead unit on the project was the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB). However, the committee received a high level of support from members and staff of the Board on Children, Youth, and Families (BOCYF)--and specifically calls attention to the critical roles played by Joah Ianotta, research assistant for BOCYF, in developing the summary of the first workshop on Non-Technical Strategies, and by Gail Pritchard, previously staff officer for CSTB, and Mickelle Rodriguez, former senior project assistant, in organizing the site visits under very trying conditions. Finally, grateful thanks are offered to Microsoft, IBM, and the Kellogg Foundation, whose financial support for this project was essential in rounding out the sponsorship of the Departments of Justice and Education. CSTB's sponsors enable but do not influence its projects.
A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE CHAIRThe National Academies are well known for producing authoritative reports on controversial subjects. It is the hope of the committee that this report will be seen as comprehensive and authoritative, but I believe it is bound to disappoint a number of readers. It will disappoint those who expect a technological "quick fix" to the challenge of pornography on the Internet. It will disappoint those who suggest that an aggressive law enforcement effort is all that is necessary to shut down pornography purveyors of all types. It will disappoint parents, school officials, and librarians who seek surrogates to fulfill the responsibilities of training and supervision needed to truly protect children from inappropriate sexual materials on the Internet. And it will disappoint free speech absolutists who maintain that children have an unrestricted right to access whatever materials they choose to read or view in today's society. Many of the members of this committee, including its chair, brought to our task somewhat simplistic views of the challenges implicit in our charge. My own views were shaped by a career in law enforcement during which time I learned that the issue of children and pornography is highly political and emotionally volatile. As a parent and a grandparent, I also feel that I have a personal stake in this issue. I think it is fair to say that all committee members recognize that we finish our task enriched by the welter of material developed for our use and by the exchanges that took place among us. Most of us are somewhat chastened, I suspect, by adherence to our earlier views. For, in truth, as our report spells out in great detail, there are no easy answers to the questions posed to our society by the proliferation of sexually explicit materials and their ready availability to children, particularly through the modem miracle we know as the Internet. Today our society is awash in graphic sexually explicit materials that are widely available in nearly every medium of communication--print, audio, and video--and in nearly every imaginable setting from home and school to overnight lodging. Much of the material with which this report is concerned was clearly violative of the obscenity laws a decade or so ago, but seldom are prosecutions brought in this 21st century. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet poses special challenges for those concerned with this phenomenon. According to the U.S. Census, two-thirds of U.S. school-age children had home access to a personal computer in 2000.6 And, most of these computers provide access to the Internet. These figures are even higher when school-provided access is added, and 90 percent of our children have Internet access in either homes or school. The rapid growth in the availability of Internet images during the last decade has posed two specific problems in the conduct of this study. First is the private nature of Internet usage. Parental and teacher or librarian supervision is not nearly as easy when children seek or are inadvertently exposed to sexually explicit materials on the Internet as when such images are available in books or on the family television set. "Policing" by responsible adults is much more difficult when the Internet is involved. Moreover, the fact that the Internet is a worldwide method of communication creates two special problems for law enforcement--even when the subject matter is what has been traditionally outlawed as obscene. U.S. Supreme Court decisions defining what is "obscene" depend, among other things, on the development of "community standards" against which the offending materials may be measured. What is the "community" for a medium that is worldwide in its reach? In addition, as the report notes, much of the pornography available on the Internet in the United States has its origins outside our borders and beyond the reach of law enforcement officials here. These are truly vexing challenges to even the most capable of modern criminal investigators and prosecutors. The breadth of background and experience of the members of this committee was a significant advantage in pursuing our charge. Likewise, the process undertaken by the committee was designed to seek out and wrestle with the many issues implicit in that charge. We sought to order our inquiry in a way that ensured that we heard from all sides and representatives of every interested point of view. Our field trips took us to communities across the country so that we might learn firsthand the views of parents, teachers, children, community leaders, and law enforcement officials. We also sought out experts in child development and child psychology, those intimately familiar with the technology of the Internet, and representatives of the adult entertainment industry themselves. I am satisfied that no potential sources of information or opinion were neglected, even if certainty on many points remained elusive. In the final analysis, I believe that this report advances our understanding of the problems of children's access to inappropriate sexual materials on the Internet. But much work remains to be done. As noted, it is essential that unresolved legal issues be put to rest. An observation to the effect that "we know obscenity when we see it" will no longer suffice. We live under the rule of law, and prosecutors and courts must attempt to resolve these problems, however difficult that may be. In addition, it is by no means clear that enough research has been carried out in this important area. Social science research into the effects of children viewing sexually explicit materials has not been carried out because of ethical considerations (although one must wonder if such reluctance doesn't speak to the reality of the harm itself). The computer industry has produced some of the largest personal fortunes in American history. Yet it has been curiously reluctant to commit its massive resources to leading edge research and development efforts in this area. Although, as the reports emphasizes, responsibility for meeting this challenge truly begins at home, we must exert ourselves as a society to provide every possible support mechanism to parents concerned about this threat to their children's well-being. No concerned parent, however responsible and determined, should be left to his or her own devices, in dealing with such a truly global challenge. It may be that some members of the committee itself complete their assignment somewhat disappointed in our accomplishments. But, in life, the important tasks are never easy ones. If this task is deemed to be important for the future of our society and our children, our comprehensive study of the multitude of issues involved in protecting children from pornography on the Internet may prove to be a building block for future efforts that can provide workable answers to the difficult questions inherent in such a study. If this study has succeeded even in part in its undertaking, credit is due to the remarkable and talented men and women who contributed so much of their valuable time, thought, and effort to this unique and daunting task. They set themselves to this difficult task in the best traditions of searching inquiry which have always characterized this great nation. Special thanks are due to Dr. Herbert Lin, whose tireless efforts kept us on track and whose skills at managing a sometimes fractious group were admirable indeed.
Acknowledgment of ReviewersThis report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Danni Ashe, Danni's Hard Drive, Libby Black, Boulder Valley School District, Frederick P. Brooks, University of North Carolina, Robert Corn-Revere, Hogan and Hartson LLP, David Finkelhor, University of New Hampshire, Elizabeth D. Liddy, Syracuse University, Eleanor Maccoby, Stanford University, Michael Miller, PC Magazine, Anita M. Pampusch, Bush Foundation, Michael Puma, The Urban Institute, William J. Raduchel, AOL Time Warner, Sally G. Reed, Norfolk Public Library, Carol Lynn Roddy, Ohio Public Library Information Network, Paul Rothstein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson, Lynne Shrum, University of Georgia, Jane M. Spinak, Columbia Law School, Bruce Taylor, National Law Center for Children and Families, Jody Townsend, Colorado PTA, Joseph Turow, University of Pennsylvania, Willis H. Ware, RAND Corporation, Ellen Wartella, University of Texas at Austin, Gio Wiederhold, Stanford University, and Nancy Willard, University of Oregon. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lyle Jones, University of North Carolina, and Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Box
Notes1 See National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2001, Nontechnical Strategies to Reduce Children's Exposure to Inappropriate Material on the Internet: Summary of a Workshop, Board on Children, Youth, and Families and Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Joah G. Iannotta, ed., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; and Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 2002, Technical, Business, and Legal Dimensions of Protecting Children from Pornography on the Internet: Proceedings of a Workshop, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2 The COPA Commission was established as part of the Child Online Protection Act, discussed in Chapter 4. Information on the COPA Commission can be found online at <http://www.copacommission.org>. 3 H. Rept. No. 105-775. 4 Consortium for School Networking, 2001. Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse. Available online at <http://www.safewiredschools.org/pubs_and_tools/white_paper.pdf>. 5 Jens Waltermann and Marcel Machill (eds.), 2000. Protecting Our Children on the Internet, Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, Gutersloh, Germany. 6 See U.S. Census Press Release, 2001. "9-in-10 School-Age Children Have Computer Access; Internet Use Pervasive, Census Bureau Reports." September 6. Available online at <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-147.html>.
|
![]() |
||||||
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||