Different Filters


A study in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association finds that Internet filtering software, required in schools and libraries by federal law, can block substantial amounts of useful heath information along with pornography and other material considered inapproriate for minors. At their most restrictive settings, seven filtering programs blocked, on average, about a quarter of the health sites tested. At their least restrictive settings (rarely used in schools and libraries) the filters let through more than 98 percent of the health information. Hence these dueling headlines:

"Internet Filters Block Many Useful Sites, Study Finds"

The New York Times

"Study Finds Porn Filters Leave Health Web Sites Accessible"

The Washington Times

NEXT: Libel for Trouble

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, the lesson I learned when working at a summer camp in my teen years is that when life hands you porn, sell it to the campers at $20 a peice.

  2. It looks less like an ambiguous set of findings than lazy (or deceptive) headline writing at the Unification Church’s paper of record to me. When focusing on sexual health topics like birth control, abortion and STDs, it’s 10% or more resources blocked at the low filter settings, making the NYT headline sensible and the Washington Times off-key at best.

    But that doesn’t make for a good ideology-driven jab at the NYT.

  3. When life hands you porn, make porninade.

  4. No No.

    When life hands you porn, masturbate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.