Unfiltered

(Upstart) When the Artist Formerly Known as Beaver College officially changed its name to Arcadia University last month, a letter from the school’s president, Bette E. Landman, cited three reasons for the switch: "[The name] too often elicits ridicule in the form of derogatory remarks pertaining to the rodent, the TV show ‘Leave It to Beaver’ and the vulgar reference to the female anatomy.” It’s easy to understand the college’s unwillingness to be tied to Jerry Mathers—the first few seasons of the series are great, don’t get me wrong, but as the Beav gets older, the show only works if viewers pretend the kid’s retarded.

The third, “vulgar” reason is much more problematic, however, especially after it was revealed that many students were restricted from accessing the Beaver College Web site as a result of filters designed to block sexually explicit material.

Fast forward to last week, and Congress’ approval of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill HR 4577, which includes a John McCain-sponsored amendment requiring the majority of the nation’s public school libraries to block online depictions of obscenity, child pornography, and "any other material that the library determines to be inappropriate for minors." Child pornography is an abhorrence all of us can agree on, no doubt, but it’s a slippery slope beyond that; there’s really no point in debating what is and isn’t obscene and inappropriate for kids—no two people are ever going to share the same definition. Which is why filtering doesn’t work, and why it never will.

Issues of ethics and morality aside, however, the impracticality of filtering is its central failing—the quirks and idiosyncrasies of modern language make it so. The contradictions and pitfalls are widespread: Colleges with silly names aside, free speech group Peacefire.org also cites that the Web sites of some Congressional candidates and Amnesty International are potential blocks according to common filtering standards. Restricting access based on euphemisms and slang also means students might not even be able to read up on the lives of more than a few Presidents—I’m thinking specifically of Lyndon Johnson, Dick Nixon, and both big and li’l George Bush. Maybe Millard Fillmore. On top of that, filtering for children means filtering for everyone—adults are not going to be able to access censored material, either. And text aside, where do sites devoted to, say, fine art fit into the puzzle?

The ACLU and other free speech activists are jumping all over HR 4577, of course, but when a community as famously conservative as Holland, Mich., shoots down mandatory filtering, as it did back in February, then you really know that a line has been crossed. Besides, what always frustrates me in any situation like this is that parents, educators and government leaders alike never fail to underestimate both kids’ resourcefulness and their resilience—if they want porn, they’re going to get it, and for that matter, it’s not going to scar them for life. It’s that simple. I don’t have kids—that’s my story, and until that broad’s lawyers prove otherwise, I’m sticking to it—but if I did, the Internet is the last thing I’d be worried about right now. I’m much more troubled by a Congress running roughshod over the First Amendment—the next thing you know, they’ll want to ban “Lawrence of Arabia” just because it stars a guy named Peter O’Toole.

Senior Editor Jason Ankeny is upset by the fact that Web-surfing children around the world may soon be cut off from the wonders of Balzac. He (Ankeny, not Balzac) can be reached at jason_ankeny@intertec.com.