Does software designed to block teenagers from viewing Internet pornography also keep them from valuable online health information?The answer is a qualified no — and yes.

According to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan, porn filters can bar access to adult-only erotica without necessarily blocking access to important informational health sites such as that of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But exactly how many of these sites are blocked depends on the "level" of filtering the software is asked to perform.

The study, which was released today, found that on the least-restrictive level, designed to filter out only pornographic Web pages, the software will filter out 87 percent of erotic Net sites yet block only 1.4 percent of health information sites.

"We were surprised that most of these [filtering programs] performed pretty well at the least restrictive settings," said Dr. Caroline Richardson of the university's medical school and one of the study's authors. "At the least restrictive settings, the products appear to have a minimal impact on health information access."

Three Different Degrees of Filtration

However, the study also notes that at more "aggressive" filtering levels, the result changes quite dramatically.

At the "intermediate" levels, which typically block categories such as nudity, drugs and suicide, the filters blocked about 5 percent of health sites dealing with those topics. But the effectiveness of blocking pornographic material rose only moderately, to 90 percent.

And at the most restrictive settings, the toll on health-related sites was more telling: Nearly 25 percent of informational sites were filtered out.

"The main thing that we found is how Net filters are configured is critical," said Victoria Rideout, a vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a philanthropic group that publishes some sexual health information online and paid $189,000 to commission the study. "There is diminishing return when it comes to blocking pornography [online]."

Fuel to the Free Speech Fire?

Researchers and experts expect the results will have vast implications for libraries and schools in the debate on balancing the need to protect children from exposure to electronic pornography yet still allow them access to the Net's wealth of information.

In 2000, Congress had passed the Child Internet Protection Act, which required filtering on computers in libraries and schools that receive public funding. But the portion that applies to public libraries is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that such filters impose upon First Amendment rights.

Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association, which challenged the CIPA filtering provisions, says Kaiser's study proves their point all along: That filtering software just does more harm than good.

"These filtering products are just not effective," said Sheketoff. "We're hoping that parents will listen to [the results of this study] and that if you're using this [software], it's not enough."

Kaiser's Rideout says that the study isn't meant to bolster the argument for or against the use of Internet filters. "We're just trying to take an objective view," she said.

The study, "See No Evil: How Internet Filters Affect the Search for Online Health Information," is featured in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Reference Source 104

For more information on how to prevent other diseases, use
PreventDisease.com's "Quick Prevention Resources".