ࡱ> vxu@ >|jbjb %hhp*5l    8> $b D $ L 4B F ,    RN<F ^  X  lb$ ##    8##\##Give It To Me Straight: The Case Against Filtering the Internet T. A. Callister, Jr. Whitman College Nicholas C. Burbules University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Clearly, one of the most controversial and contentious issues surrounding the use of the Internet, especially in schools and libraries, has to do with whether or not we should filter students access to the Internet. In this article, we will argue the position that schools should not filter the Internet. Before we make our argument, however, it might be useful for us to explain something about our backgrounds. We have both worked in institutional settings as teachers: one as a pre-school teacher and one as an elementary school teacher. We are now both professors of education whose interests and area of expertise include the study of technology and education. Both of us hold strong positions about issues of civil liberties, free speech and expression, and the egalitarian rights of students to learn and have the opportunity to learn. And finally, we are both fathers of young children. We want our children to experience success and happiness, we want them to have every educational opportunity, and, of course, we want to protect them, as best we can, from the harmful things in this world. Our experiences as teachers of young people, as professors, as liberals, and as fathers can sometimes be a little conflicting, and dealing with issues of education often require us to balance different priorities our parental concerns, for example, may not always coincide with our political egalitarian concerns. Our position on filtering and access to the Internet for students is our best attempt to resolve those priorities in ways that we believe are fair and educationally beneficial for all. On the face of it, the idea of filtering seems perfectly reasonable. The good is allowed in and the bad is kept out. Just think of some of the ways we filter: Most of us probably have an oil filter and an air filter in our car. Making coffee requires the use of a filter to keep out the grinds. People sometimes take a water filter with them when they camp to filter out harmful debris and bacteria from streams and lakes. Before one of the authors quit smoking, he smoked filtered cigarettes, believing, naively, that the filters made the cigarette less harmful. If either one of us ever had a swimming pool, wed have a filter of some sort. Ideally, filters allow us to remove impurities in some way that operates at least semi-automatically and, for the most part, invisibly in the background. We use the notion of filtering in other ways as well, however, and that makes the idea of filtering the Internet a little more problematic. The popular computer program Photoshop, a computer program for manipulating digital graphics, is a good example. In the menu bar in Photoshop, is the heading filter. It is from there the user can perform the functions they call sharpen, blur, and distort. In fact, in computer graphics, to filter means to change, transform, and distort. Heres another way to think about filtering: Filtering can be seen as a way to separate and sort not in terms of good from bad per se, but by rules and criteria put in place by an individual. For example, the typical email program allows the user to set up filters to sort his or her mail perhaps personal mail messages go into one folder, work messages into another. This may be a convenient way to work for many, but perhaps less so if someone else establishes the criteria by which the sorting is done. We will return to that idea in a moment. To support filtering the Internet sounds reasonable and benign, at least initially, because we tend to think of filtering in the first sense removing the bad content, allowing only the good to pass through. But just as the word filter has several meanings in language, it also functions in several ways when we begin to filter whats on the Internet. Filtering information sounds much less appealing when we think of it in terms of distortion, or when the criteria to sort and separate are established by others without our control or knowledge. It is these notions of filtering, we want to argue, that have serious educational implications for what it is we should be doing in schools. First we will describe how it is that Internet filters work, and then we will make several arguments why we do not think they should be used in educational settings. Filtering is the practice of installing some software program on a computer that stands between the user and the Internet in such a way that prevents people from using that computer for accessing or receiving bad content. The use of the word bad is, of course, problematic. What do we mean by bad? Actually, this addresses one of the major problems with filtering that we will discuss below what is bad most often involves some degree of personal determination and judgment. Filtering programs have clever names like NetNanny and SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, and X-Stop. They basically work by taking one or more of the following three strategies: The first strategy uses key words or image analysis. The filtering software analyzes sites for words, phrases, or images that are deemed objectionable. Although we will make the claim that this method often backfires, here is one example of how it can go wrong. The Digital Freedom Network reports that the web site of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, a staunch supporter of filtering, is blocked by NetNanny, CyberSitter and others. His name is Dick Armey. The second strategy is content analysis by software company. Many companies have their staff review sites and designate the sites as either suitable or not suitable for young people. It is also common for these programs to include features that allow the software administrator (a parent, a teacher, a principle) to program in words, phrases or the addresses of complete web sites that are to be blocked. Another preview: According to Nancy Kranich, the president of the American Library Association, at least one program blocked the main Democratic Party web page, but not the Republican one; Handgun Control was blocked, but not the National Rifle Association. The third strategy is self-identification. Some web sites voluntarily identify themselves as not appropriate for young people. This method is obviously fraught with problems. It is essentially asking the fox guard the henhouse. It also strikes to the heart of what much of this debate is about in the first place just what does count as objectionable? We might all agree on some things that are objectionable, but the number of our agreements would certainly pale beside the number of our disagreements. In December 2000, Congress passed the Childrens Internet Protection Act. This legislation required schools and libraries to filter the Internet if they wished to retain their federal technology funding. The law was challenged on constitutional grounds by a coalition of plaintiffs including the ACLU and the American Library Association. In May 2002, The United States District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit imposed a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law. The Courts ruling, unfortunately, only addressed the laws effect on libraries; public schools remain subject to the laws provisions. Our interest in filtering, however, has less to do with issues of constitutionality and legality we are not qualified to comment on either rather, our arguments against filtering are based on educational concerns. We contend that in the interest of providing students with an education that is democratic, intellectual, and personally meaningful, there are at least six reasons not to filter their Internet access in school. Reason One Parents have every right to filter their childrens Internet access at home. Although we would be personally loathe to filter our own childrens access, it is clearly a parents right to do so. But just because parents can filter at home, does not mean educators should filter at school. Schools and homes are different places. They have different norms, and to some extent, different values. At home, for example, we teach our children to share and help each other. But that same activity, when its in the classroom, is often seen as cheating. Schools are places where the education of children and young people is accomplished both explicitly and implicitly. Filtering is anti-educational in its explicit manifestation because it prevents students from accessing certain materials that they might find educational. Perhaps more importantly, filtering is anti-educational in its implicit messages about what it is that we as adults consider education to be. It promotes a notion of education steeped in the importance of obedience and acquiescence, while minimizing the need for student questioning and discovery. As a result, filtering operates counter to what it is we would argue students need to learn to do in school discern, discriminate, synthesize, and evaluate. How can students learn to be responsible, to make good social and intellectual choices, if those choices are made for them by filtering the information they can and cannot access? It is difficult to teach young people self-control and judgment by denying them access to those things on which they need to exercise judgment. An important aside is necessary here: Although it is most often framed in terms of protecting children, a proliferation of filtering software will have the general effect of censoring content for everyone. Our guess is that many of filterings most fervent advocates aren't drawing clean lines between children and adults they don't want the sites they find offensive available to anyone including adults. It is important to realize that a schools Internet resources would not only be filtered for students, it would also be filtered for their teachers. Reason Two Filtering software does not work. In one sense, this alone should end the debate it just doesnt work. Filtering software too often blocks legitimate sites, and often does not block the kinds of sites that it was intended to filter in the first place. There are hundreds of examples to be found on any number of anti-filtering sites on the Web, many of them blocked, of course, but here is an extended example from the Censorware Project to add to the one about Representative Armey. The Utah Education Network (UEN) is, according to their web site, a publicly-funded consortium providing Internet access and supporting educational technology needs for Utah's public and higher education institutions, public libraries, and state agencies. They are upfront in stating that Utah schools use filtering software (they call Internet filtering Internet Content Management) and have done this for many years. The software used by the UNE at the time of the study we discuss below, was Smartfilter, a popular commercial filtering program. The way the software worked is that it would examine each request for a web page from an individual computer and compare that request to an encrypted list of unacceptable Internet addresses determined by the Secure Computing Company, the maker of Smartfilter. Sites that were unacceptable (apparently determined by both human analysis and computer analysis) fell into the broad categories of: Criminal skills Hate speech Drugs Gambling And, of course, Sex The software also kept a log of each rejected request that listed the name of the requested site and the objectionable category into which it fell. In 1998, the Censorware Project Organization (Censorware is what anti-filtering advocates call filtering software) was able, after much resistance from UNE, to obtain the logs for Sept. 10 through Oct. 10, 1998 generated by Smartfilter and kept by the UEN. Here, from the Censorware report, are a few selected examples of some of the things students and library patrons tried to get from the Internet, but were unable to get, because filtering blocked their access. These are actual requests for web sites or documents on web sites that were denied: Under the category of Criminal skills: The Krusty the Clown tribute page (from the Simpsons). An e-zine (electronic magazine) about modern Marxism. The Declaration of Independence The complete texts of famous works including: The Holy Bible Moby Dick The Book of Mormon The Koran The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Dickenss Christmas Carol And many others Under the category of Hate Speech  HYPERLINK "http://www.hatewatch.org" www.hatewatch.org the best-known anti-hate speech site on the web Under the category of drugs Many sites promoting the legalization of marijuana The Earth First! Environmentalist group Corona .com (the beer) Remember, these are actual sites people tried to access but were prevented from doing so. Under the category of Gambling The History of Nevada website Anything to do with a casino The Instructional Systems Program, Department of Educational Research in The College of Education at Florida State University (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~wwager/index_public.html) Under the category of sex The Official Baywatch website  HYPERLINK "http://www.Birthcontrol.com" www.Birthcontrol.com Dozens of news sites that contained any mention of the Starr Report  HYPERLINK "http://www.mormon.com" www.mormon.com This same commercial software used in Broward County, Florida banned any sites having to do with vegetarianism or information on breast cancer. So how does  HYPERLINK "http://www.mormon.com" www.mormon.com get blocked for sex in Utah? How does the Declaration of Independence get blocked under the category of criminal skills? In some instances we can figure it out: the Florida State site was apparently blocked because the letters w-a-g-e-r (wager) were in the sites address. The Declaration of Independence, Wuthering Heights? The other classic works? Theyre are on the site wiretap.area.com which contains the text of hundreds of out of copyright books, governmental and civics materials, religious materials, etc. The entire site was blocked. The others? We dont know. SmartFilter, like most filtering software programs keeps its lists of unacceptable sites private. Our question is this: what is lost to a student who cannot access information about Marx, anti-hate speech, or birth control? A great deal we would argue. Although we are most interested in what gets wrongly blocked because we worry about the educational implications of restricting access to information, theres also the other side of the coin what doesnt get blocked. Out of curiosity, and in the context of writing this article, one of the authors put his favorite Web search engine into family-friendly (filtering) mode and typed in a crude synonym for breasts. The first site listed, had just that. Some young woman, for reasons we cant fathom, had taken a number of provocative pictures of herself and put them on the Web. In an attempt to replicate the results, the same exercise was tried several days later. This time the site was gone from the listing. We suppose if we try again at some future time, some new site like this will be available before someone notices and has it blocked. If nothing else, the use of filtering software certainly instills a false sense of security. It is kind of like filtering a cigarette you might feel better about smoking, but a lot of bad stuff still gets through. Finally, if you can get to Peacefire.com (and if you cant, your children or students probably can, even though many filtering programs block access to it), you can download a small bit of software that can disable many popular filtering programs. As the Peacefire site used to state on the header of its web page: It's not a crime to be smarter than your parents. We need to be realistic our children, our students they know a lot more about these things than most of us. Thinking we can keep them from sites we dont want them to see simply by installing filters is whistling in the dark. The solution is educational, not technical, as we will argue below. The problem for us, of course, is this: the fact that filtering does not work is not a sufficiently strong argument to eliminate filtering. The easy, although nave, reply to any of the above objections is that the filtering technology will improve and less will go wrong. But thats a narrow conception of whats wrong with filtering even if filtering software were somehow perfect, much would still be wrong. Reason Three Filtering is censorship and that is educationally unacceptable. In this country, there is the general attitude that in a liberal democracy both adults and young people are free to read pretty much whatever they want. Most Americans seem to have an instinctive faith that the books assigned by schools or placed in libraries have been selected based on their merit, and that censorship limits their rights as individuals. For the most part, we seem to disapprove of the kind of censorship where individuals or small groups of like-minded people, who apparently believe they can see dangers in literature and educational materials that others cannot, try to have those materials withheld from not only their own children, which is certainly their right, but also everyone elses children. We are all probably familiar with many of the books usually targeted: Huck Finn, Catcher in the Rye, the Impressions reading series, anything written by Judy Bloom, and now, of all things, Harry Potter. For those individuals and groups of people who find sex or sexism, witchcraft or indoctrination in secular humanism, hiding between lines of text or lurking in the recesses of the illustrations in childrens books, the advent of free and open access to the Internet may well be tantamount to opening the gates of Hell. On the Internet, there is much to offend even the most unimaginative would-be censor. Our concern is that too often the excuse to filter, to censor, Internet access is based on the argument that the Internet is virtually awash in pornography. But in attacking the perceived threat of pornography, the real casualties are the freedoms of academic and intellectual inquiry that we believe should extend to all students and young people. Since, however, Internet pornography seems to be the point of contention, let us try to explain very briefly something about pornography and the Internet. A student turning on his or her computer and connecting to the Internet isnt instantly flooded with some enormous amount of unsolicited "information." Rather, users typically search for what they want a specific piece information, a graphic, the best price for a new music CD, or even better, a downloadable MP3 file. Navigating the Internet is not like switching channels on a television set where each change of the channel brings some element of surprise. Rather, navigating the Internet is much like walking down a long corridor where all the doors are fairly well marked. Not that we have necessarily looked, but neither of us have encountered many lurkers or flashers out there popping out of unexamined or intentionally mislabeled doorways. Yes, we both have been surprised once or twice by an unexpected dirty picture. But based on many thousands of hours on-line, we believe this is a relatively rare phenomenon. Our anecdotal experiences aside, according to the Online Computer Library Center, adult content exists on only an extremely small proportion of the Web about two percent of free public sites, they claim, contain sexually explicit material. Certainly, there is some pornographic material on the Internet, but one way to avoid it is take the following advice: If a link says, in large, flashing, red, capital letters: CLICK HERE TO SEE HOT TEEN SEX, and you dont want to see hot teen sex dont click! In the end, its the responsibility of educators to provide students access to the greatest amount of appropriate educational material. Its the idea John Stuart Mill had in advocating a free marketplace of ideas. Its the notion that Marxism and, yes, even vegetarianism, are acceptable topics for students to read about. Censorship is the tool of propaganda, indoctrination, and ignorance; it is antithetical to what educational opportunity, free expression, and intellectual inquiry require in a democracy. Reason Four Filtering is capricious and unpredictable. This is the dark side of the wrongly blocked sites issue and plays out in two ways: one, filtering opens a floodgate of potential abuse when individuals can designate sites to be blocked, and two, filtering represents a deeper more insidious manner of censorship a kind of censorship unique to the Internet. The first point seems fairly obvious, and here is an example: Consumer Reports tested several different filtering software packages and found that at least two of the most popular programs blocked access to: Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Lesbian.org National Institute of Drug Abuse Southern Poverty Law Center When some individuals are allowed to determine what sites others may visit, an arbitrary kind of censorship is established based on the idiosyncratic, ideological whims of those individuals. What content is objectionable and what is not, too often lies in the eye of the beholder. When access can be manipulated by those who have little accountability school officials or the anonymous people working for some filtering software company it becomes impossible to believe that this practice has any widespread educational credibility. The unpredictability of filtering plays out in another way as well. Often sites may be blocked because of their casual relationship with subjects, or simply terms, that an individual or a software program deems to be objectionable. A filter, in the course of blocking material of a sexual nature, for example, might also block access to general information about gender, womens health care issues, or issues of equality in womens sports. Baby pictures get blocked because of the predominance of skin-toned pixels in the graphic. The second part of this issue is even more problematic from an educational point of view. When sites about certain topics are withheld from students, those students are essentially prevented from exposure to and consideration of a range of ideas ideas, we have argued, that have often been blocked arbitrarily. The problem is, students may be unaware of what it is they have been prevented from seeing. It is one thing to know some information exists and to be denied access the book you can see but cant check out. It is quite another thing for information to be hidden. Filtering prevents students from knowing enough to even have the opportunity to ask the question and thus they never knowing what they have been prevented from seeing, reading, or thinking about. Here is a variation of an example were used elsewhere: A student searching the Internet for references to vegetarianism finds none. What can this mean to the student? Does this leave the impression that vegetarianism is not of sufficient importance to warrant any entry? Perhaps she is savvy enough to know that there is such a thing as vegetarianism and believe that not finding it on the Web means that it has been filtered. Does this leave the impression that perhaps there is something wrong with vegetarianism and that is why it might have been blocked? We imagine that most students are well enough informed about the world to believe that their inability to find references to vegetarianism on the Internet would indicate blocking, but we can also imagine that because of filtering, a student inquiring into vegetarian issues might never come across vegan a practice that may not be well known enough that the student would suspect blocking. From an educational perspective, this is untenable and leads to our fifth reason not to filter. Reason Five Those who advocate filtering often seem to have a very narrow conception of the nature of knowledge and understanding. And this is where filtering takes on the role not of separating good from bad, but of changing and distorting. Filtering presents to the student an incomplete, haphazard, obscured view of the world a view fashioned by the vagaries of others and the flawed heuristics of less than intelligent computer software. Imagine, we take the wealth of information available on the Internet, and then start chipping away: The filtering software company removes sites for reasons we cant know because they wont disclose them; the software blocks cites because it cannot understand the complexities of language or, more importantly, the intent of the user (not everyone searching for swimsuits is looking for pictures of scantly clothed women); the teacher, the principle, the school board, and the parent all have the option to remove a little of this, a lot of that. And whats left? A very strange, incomplete, and distorted view of the world. Learning building upon learning a kind of intellectual growth brought about by the asking of questions and the searching for answers. That growth is challenged if the searching comes up empty. We have a responsibility to maximize students access to information, not to limit it, because a filtered view of the world makes the construction of knowledge impossible. In the same way, understanding has an individual component we have individual ways of understanding our world. Filtering removes the freedom of students to explore, to think for themselves. To be sure, knowledge, creativity, critical thinking, discernment, wisdom are not about the accumulation of facts. They are about the relationships between ideas, information, ethics, and culture. When students search the Internet, the sites they go to are not necessarily destinations; they are often steps on some path of discovery. It is not that students goes to vegetarianism as much as they may move through vegetarianism on their way to somewhere else somewhere where they (and only they) see a connection. If we close the door marked vegetarian, we dont just close a door, we close a hallway of possibilities. Reason Six The problem, if it actually is a problem, of children accessing objectionable material on the Internet is an educational one, not a technological one. Attempting to restrict access to the Internet because a student might see a dirty picture, is like closing libraries because someone once exposed himself in the stacks it is the wrong response for the problem it attempts to solve. We want to argue that free and open access to the resources of the Internet will create much less of a problem for schools and teachers than many people seem to fear. Children and young people using the Internet for educational purposes will not, in fact, be flooded with pornography, cyberstalked by child molesters, or sucked in to chat rooms of perversion. Quite simply: good teachers in well-run classrooms know what their students are doing. Students in good classrooms are too busy and too involved in their education to have the time or interest to be looking at dirty pictures. There is an incredible wealth of educationally useful material available on-line. And yes, there is also an incredible amount of junk. But educational, intellectual, and even ethical decisions about what to make of all that one can find on the Internet these are decisions and judgments that belong in the hands of students, guided by their teachers. The imposition of filtering removes that educational opportunity and most certainly brings a vast watering down of the educational potential of the Internet. Conclusion The Internet is now the primary way many teachers and students access the information and data they use in their educational pursuits. In other times, would we require students to go to the library but then hide half the books? Of course not. It is hard for us not to believe that a major impetus behind the move to filter is less about the objectionable material on the internet than it is about the reluctance of some adults to allow their children, and others, to have the free access to informational that will allow them to come to their own conclusions about the world and their place in it. We must resist that kind of restrictive and provincial thinking. Growth requires the freedom to learn, to think, to experiment, and to develop the capacity to make good judgments. It is educationally irresponsible for us not to provide students with the greatest possible access to the means for achieving those ends. PAGE 20  PAGE 2 PAGE   dfn.org/focus/censor/contest.htm  www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2698690,00.html  See for example:  HYPERLINK "http://www.glaad.org/org/publications/access/index.html" http://www.glaad.org/org/publications/access/index.html  HYPERLINK "http://censorware.net/" http://censorware.net/  HYPERLINK "http://www.peacefire.org/" http://www.peacefire.org/  HYPERLINK "http://www.ifea.net/" http://www.ifea.net/ http://www.nofilters.org/  See  HYPERLINK "http://censorware.net/reports/utah/index.html" http://censorware.net/reports/utah/index.html for a complete description.  http://www.uen.org/services/  According to the UNE, they now use a filter called N2H2.  This site was later manually over-ridden.  Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Vol. 48, No. 2 March 1999, p. 38.  http://peacefire.com/  OCLC is a nonprofit membership organization serving 41,000 libraries in 82 countries and territories around the world. Its mission is to further access to the world's information and reduce library costs by offering services for libraries and their users. http://wcp.oclc.org/stats/misc.html  www.consumerreports.org  Watch IT.  According to a CNN report, a swim team in Albuquerque couldn't get to sites about swimsuits. http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/09/17/school.web.filters.ap/index.html |9?&' $$b'k'( (H,L,--%-....0091:1h7i777777 : :6:7:8:L:M::::¹¹¹¹¬œ¬¬jCJOJPJQJU0JCJOJPJQJjCJOJPJQJUjCJOJPJQJUj0JPJUCJOJPJQJ6CJCJ 5CJPJ5CJOJQJ j0JU5;CJOJQJ6CJOJQJ CJOJQJ.@AVfg| $std ^` dh&dPdh$dha$$a$@AVfg| $stuv[\ $$$&&**--%-//2222233334455#6\6}666666737E7F7h7777'8P8h8i88889 999  ^tuv[\ $$$&&** dh^` dh !dh^dh*--%-//2222233334455#6\6}6666^dhdh hdh^h` dh^`666737E7F7h7777'8P8h8i88889 99999 :N: h^`h dh ! 8^8`dh999 :N::::\;];>>?>>>CCEEAGBGOG/K0KNNXSYS`TaTaVbVnVWWXXXX Y'Y(YB[C[X]Y]^`_`bb d!dddd@fAfhhjj[m\mgmnn8q9q;s>?>>>CCEEAGBGOG/K0KNNXSYS`TaTaVdh dh^`dh`::::::Y;Z;i;j;;;;;;=&=?>>>C0C1CEDvDEEAGOG0KNNUSVS`TbVnV X!X``dŵūŞŐʼntʼnj0JCJOJQJU5CJOJQJ CJOJQJCJB*CJOJQJph6B*CJOJQJph6CJOJPJQJjgCJOJPJQJUCJOJPJQJj0JPJU0JCJOJPJQJjCJOJPJQJUjCJOJPJQJU)aVbVnVWWXXXX Y'Y(YB[C[X]Y]^`_`bb d!dddd@fAfhhxdhdhddgg\mgm:sFsvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwwwww w+w,wdwewwwxwwwwwwwwxxx5x6x7x8x_xj}0JUj(0JU0J j0JU0JCJOJQJmH0JCJOJQJj0JCJOJQJU0J j0JU5CJOJQJ CJOJQJj0JPJUCJOJPJQJ5CJOJPJQJ5hjj[m\mgmnn8q9q;s|dh&`#$h]h_x`xaxzx{x|x}xxxxxxxxxxyyyByCy`yayyyyyyy/z0z1zGzHzm{n{{{{{=|>| CJOJQJPJ jPJU 0JB*phjU jUj+0JU0J j0JUjN0JU)xx`yyyy/zGzm{{{<|=|>| # 0/ =!"#$%DyK www.hatewatch.orgyK 4http://www.hatewatch.org/DyK www.Birthcontrol.comyK :http://www.Birthcontrol.com/DyK www.mormon.comyK .http://www.mormon.com/DyK www.mormon.comyK .http://www.mormon.com/UDyK 8http://www.glaad.org/org/publications/access/index.htmlyK phttp://www.glaad.org/org/publications/access/index.htmlDyK http://censorware.net/yK .http://censorware.net/DyK http://www.peacefire.org/yK 4http://www.peacefire.org/DyK http://www.ifea.net/yK *http://www.ifea.net/-DyK .http://censorware.net/reports/utah/index.htmlyK \http://censorware.net/reports/utah/index.html i0@0NormalCJOJQJmH ,, Heading 1$@&D@D Heading 2$h@&^h`5PJ4@4 Heading 3$@&5PJ6@6 Heading 4$$@&a$6<A@<Default Paragraph FontPC@PBody Text Indenth^h` OJPJQJNR@NBody Text Indent 2dh^`:: Footnote Text CJOJQJD&@!DFootnote ReferenceCJH*OJQJHS2HBody Text Indent 3^`(U@A( Hyperlink>*B*<+@R< Endnote TextCJOJPJQJ6*@a6Endnote ReferenceH*,@r,Header  !&)@& Page Number4B@4 Body Textdh5PJ8V@8FollowedHyperlink>*B* @P@@ Body Text 2dhCJOJPJQJ, @,Footer  !>v      &((*9+4Y50=UM RZa>v #\Xw'?e47     7 k>v!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z! z! z! z! z! z!z$ z5u"h+/]5>4HvQ]Y:aip>vLs\' [  | L &))),:d_x>|@HJMt*6N:aVhw>|ACDEGIKL9x>|BFNh111 474L4444i555>vXXXX ",!!!o-/Xrt :7XXXXX8@0( gnih)+ B S  ?>vs{%%//)0-0ppq?vps}}EOSS8 = ,6&&Z[((**e.f.////33?8V8??GGGGUU[[q^^^^__aabbdd:fvP @GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial9Palatino3Times"qhhn+sfi9-/]]la~!0dos@Thoughts about filteringT.A. CallisterT. A. Callister Oh+'0   < H T `lt|'Thoughts about filtering0.houT.A. Callisterf.A.NormallT. A. Callister57AMicrosoft Word 10.1@N%q@Ycf@J@d`/]] ՜.+,D՜.+,P  hp  'Whitman Collegelor Thoughts about filtering TitleL 8@ _PID_HLINKS'A652 http://www.mormon.com/p52http://www.mormon.com/pIPhttp://www.Birthcontrol.com/pT%http://www.hatewatch.org/pv .http://censorware.net/reports/utah/index.htmlpCM http://www.ifea.net/p[1http://www.peacefire.org/p(shttp://censorware.net/p~8http://www.glaad.org/org/publications/access/index.htmlp  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdfghijklnopqrstwRoot Entry FuӰyData P1TableXWordDocument%SummaryInformation(eDocumentSummaryInformation8mCompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8