Moises Orihuela

Ms. Alcaraz

ENG 11 p.2

16 February 2018

We Should​ ’​t Keep Web Filters

School web filters are meant to restrict the use of any website or source that may be

harmful to the user or computer. Schools use web filters to protect kids from looking at adult

content, catching internet viruses, and other websites that reach the criteria of the web filters. The

way web filters block the unwanted material is by using keywords to find inside websites, and

those who have those certain keywords are blocked off and filtered out. There are many

controversies on filtering out websites and why web filters do not work, like how web filters are

restricting our 1st amendment, web filters also over block websites and that means even if there

is a website with only educational information and no adult content, it will be blocked, and lastly

web filters make us work harder than we need to take them down so we can work harder, and

faster without all the hassle of blocked off websites. School web filters are too harsh because

they over block websites.

School web filters are harsh because they overblock websites, for example, when web

filters block even one website, it violates our rights, the internet is protected by the first

amendment in the united states. First off. ​according to Ashley Poland, and her article “The

Disadvantages of Internet Censorship” she claims, "... Free speech is a right, the internet is

protected by it. When a website is shut down or forced it modify itˊs legal content, the censorship

violates a webmasterˊs rights"(Poland).​ ​ ​This means that the 1st amendment, Freedom of speech,
is being taken when web filters are of use.​ Secondly, ​Leanne Phillips a different writer also states

in her article “Do Internet Filters abridge free speech?”, “Groups like the ACLU, the EPIC and

the ALA charge that the Children’s Internet protection ACT, regardless of its noble objectives,

has the unwanted side effect of ‘abridge the freedom of speech’ because it blocks websites that

are not offensive or harmful to children and that are in some cases educational and informative”

(phillips).​ ​Meaning that many associations are trying to stop the overblocking of web filters

because most things filtered didn’t have to be but still are because of this, we aren't at our full

potential of learning.

Lastly, ​according to the article “Anti-LGBT web Filtering”, from ACLU.org, they argue,

“Schools often use that software to block sites that provide positive, useful information about

lgbt issues, LGBT issues, even though the websites aren’t sexually explicit in any way”

(ACLU.org).​ ​What this means is that many LGBT websites are being blocked off and filtered out

because of specific keywords even if it isn’t explicit.​ School web filters are too harsh because

they take our 1st amendment, another example is, they overblock websites, even if it is

educational, but because of specific keywords, they are filtered out. The LGBT community is

censored by the web filters because of words they use, and many associates are trying to stop

over blocking.

School web filters are too harsh because they over block websites. Overblocking websites

make us work harder than we need to because of all the searching for unfiltered websites.​ Ryan

Henricksen wrote an article named “Are web filters at your school too restrictive?” and in it, he

states, “ Students, teachers, and school librarians in many schools are frustrated daily when they

discover legitimate educational websites blocked by filtering software installed by their school”
(henricksen).​ ​Web filters block anything that has a specific word or phrase, most educational

websites will be blocked, especially if they are sex-ed.​ Also, ​Annie Murphy Paul argued in her

article “Why school’s effects to block the internet are so laughably lame” that, “within days,

even hours of the devices distribution, their young users have figured out how to circumvent the

filters meant to block access to games, social networking, and other non- educational activities

(not to mention offensive or inappropriate content)” (Paul).​ ​So this means setting up a web filter

is just a waste of time, kids will dedicate themselves to bypass and access the internet freely.

Lastly, ​Nancy Willard also states “These choices should be integrated into curriculum that

instructs students on how to engage safely and effectively with the internet, on how ‘to use the

filters sitting on their shoulders’”(Willard).​ ​Meaning, there should be trust among the students,

for example, contracts that explain how a student is responsible for what he looks for on the

internet.​ Because of all the educational websites they overblock websites, school web filters are

harsh. They make us work harder to get information because of all the educational websites that

are blocked for keywords. It is already hard to set up a web filter, and kids somehow always find

a way around them. Instead of making web filters, they should have trust among students and

contracts that say that we are responsible for what we find on the internet.

School web filters are harsh because they over block websites, also school web filters are

more harmful when they censor, than when they don’t.​ Crystal lombardo, who argued in “Pros

and Cons of Censorship in Schools”, “By censoring certain topics and materials, they have as

many resources as they might need to teach effectively” (lombardo).​ ​This means, teachers will be

having a harder time teaching when the web filters are censoring many resources, they will need

to be more creative and takes more time to present and get through to students, it will be harder
without the full list of resources.​ ​She also states in the same article, “...Limiting their children’s

views and exposures to facts and real issues can also be harmful” (lombardo).​ ​Censoring sources

on the internet makes kids ignorant about the real world. Many parents would want to take care

of their children by hiding the bad things but when you limit the child's view on the real world,

by the time they see it they’ll be overwhelmed, shocked, or misinformed of it because of all the

hidden things.​ Lastly,​ Lombardo states, “ It allows parents to have a more active role in what

their kids learn… once you give in to one group’s request to ban certain topics or materials, it

won’t be long before another group has another concern and asks for it to be censored”

(Lombardo).​ ​What she is saying by this is that Parents can request to have certain topics and

materials be removed from a lesson if they find it to be harmful, discriminating, or offensive to

their race, culture, religion, or values, but this can result in a snowball effect. It is when one

parent asks for one thing and it sets off a chain reaction of parents asking for things to be

removed from lessons, eventually the school will have nothing to teach or it will have to decide

on its own on what to remove or not.​ School web filters are too harsh because they over block

websites. Web filters often limit a teacher’s freedom and creativity in method materials.

Additionally, it will make kids ignorant of the real world. Also it will make parents give off a

snowball effect. Kids will be the ones suffering because of web filters, because when they see the

uncensored world, they’ll be lost, confused, and overwhelmed.

Because the school web filters are too harsh for over blocking, we shouldn’t use it

because they violate the first amendment, they make kids ignorant of the real world. Most

schools use web filters to protect kids from watching adult content or to make sure nothing

disturbs them while they use it, but if that keeps up, by the time they learn about it, they’ll be
overwhelmed by the world and internet. Not only that, but it also violates our 1st amendment on

the bill of rights, the websites that are on the internet are protected by it. Lastly, web filters are

hard to put up and kids almost always find a way to get passed them, so it is easier to just have

no web filter at all.