Young, gay in the USA? 404 not available, this content is restricted in Missouri

19 Aug 11 | Uncategorized

Thanks to every American coming-of-age comedy set in the hallways of a high school, the British quiz me on my own experiences as an angry teenager in North Carolina. After covering pep rallies and the prom, I am inevitably asked about the image of a high school football coach awkwardly explaining the evils of teenaged sex. My parents decided to opt out of my state-mandated sex education, but my disappointed peers relayed to me a cringe-worthy experience involving our stout wrestling coach rattling off scripted warnings about the dangers of teenage fornication, and the magic of abstinence.

In my high school, learning about sex was a case study in the blind leading the blind. Sex was a secret, and we turned to our peers for the answers, rather than state-mandated sermons. It was cool to already know about sex, and if you didn’t, you were reduced to trying to glean explanations from more experienced peers, and discretely using Urban Dictionary to decode the information. Sex was confusing, but many of us felt too ashamed to admit our ignorance. As teenagers in the early noughties, school internet access served as a resource, answering the questions that we did not feel comfortable asking aloud.

On 15 August, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a suit against Camdenton school district, in Missouri, on behalf of four LGBT organisations that have had their sites blocked by filters on the school district’s computers, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. The suit, filed on behalf of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG National), the Matthew Shepard Foundation, DignityUSA and Campus Pride, involves a filter that blocks websites providing information on LGBT issues, rather than merely blocking sexually explicit content, and demands that it be taken down. The ACLU sent a letter to the district in May, notifying them that it was unconstitutional to block four websites known for providing information on anti-bullying and gay-straight alliances. After unblocking a couple of sites, the school board refused to unblock hundreds of other websites that provide information for LGBT students, forcing students to ask for permission every time they visit one of the sites. Anti-LGBT sites, on the other hand, are unrestricted. It is outrageous to think that a teenager would have to publicly announce such a private matter in order to access information.

According to a policy briefing published by the Guttmacher Institute in January 2011, Missouri is one of 26 states that “stress” abstinence as the best option for teens. Missouri’s sex education program also leaves out a discussion of sexual orientation, and the proper usage of contraception.

An out of touch and uninformed sex education program leaves most students with unanswered questions, and this is most true for LGBT students, who have less access to resources than their heterosexual counterparts.

Jody M Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG National, an organisation that has provided information to young members of the LGBT community for almost forty years, believes that blocking such websites can be detrimental to youths wrestling with questions of sexuality:

Many LGBT students either don’t have access to the Internet at home or, if they do, they don’t feel safe accessing this information on their home computers. In order to ensure the physical and mental well-being of LGBT youth — especially given the wide access to negative information on LGBT issues — these resources must be accessible.

In addition to inadequate sex education, LGBT students also face the risk of harassment. According to a 2009 report by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), “nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year, and two-thirds felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation”.

Camdenton school district should take note of this increase in bullying and suicide, as their students are unable to get answers through a sensible sex education program. They should take a step towards prioratising the sexual health and safety of their students and remove the filters.

Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship.

EU parliament votes against pointless web blocking and for child protection

15 Feb 11 | Digital Freedom, Uncategorized

With a crushing majority of 40 in favour, 0 against and 5 abstentions, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament has voted against a European Commission proposal to introduce mandatory EU-wide web blocking. This comes as a result of a campaign by European Digital Rights, supported by organisations such as the German Association of Child Abuse Victims against Web Blocking and the European ISP Association.

In the year since the original proposal was launched, parliamentarians have grown increasingly concerned by the lack of vision of the European Commission regarding the proposal’s aims. At meeting after meeting, commission representatives and the commissioner herself were unable to provide any evidence that blocking would serve a purpose, they were not even able to be clear on what blocking was meant to achieve.

They started by saying that blocking would “disrupt” commercial child-porn networks, until their own research showed that this is a small and diminishing problem. Then they said it was to stop accidental access, until they were unable to show this was an actual problem or that blocking would help. Finally, they said that it would help victims psychologically — although any policy which leaves abuse images on the internet is hardly likely to do this. The permanent retreat into ever-more facile arguments eventually started grating on parliamentarians who, like the citizens they represent, deserve better. A restriction on the right to communication cannot be based on soundbites and gut reactions.

At the same time, parliamentarians became increasingly aware of the damage that existing blocking systems are doing to both child protection and fundamental rights in those countries where it is already imposed. They saw how countries like Denmark and Sweden create blocking lists outside the rule of law, sometimes leaving whole websites abroad blocked but with no way of even knowing — the accusatory and defamatory blocking page being shown only to people in the countries doing the blocking.

The blocking approach in Denmark, Sweden and the UK breaks every element of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is neither “necessary” nor is it “prescribed by law” in those countries. How can child abuse material have such a low priority that its regulation is the only crime which does not require countermeasures to be laid down in law? Worse still, once the blocking veil is cast thoughtlessly and lawlessly over the allegedly illegal sites abroad and over government inaction to have the websites removed, countries promptly lose the will to take even minimal measures to address the crime. A Danish police official, for example, said in a speech to the German Federal Parliament that they don’t see any need to send reports of these serious crimes to the United States or Russia. Which other serious crime would be treated in this way? Why does blocking destroy the will of governments to treat online child abuse with the seriousness it deserves? Why would child protection organisations ever dream of supporting such a counterproductive measure?

This is the essence of the text agreed by the European Parliament’s Committee on the evening of 14 February. The text demands effective action against the crimes — it demands supervision of the member states’ efforts through a yearly report on their activities. It removes the obligation on member states to introduce blocking and places new measures on member states that insist on blocking in order to at least move in the direction of respect for basic fundamental rights. It chooses concrete child protection measures over symbols, excuses and failure. 14 February… a day to start loving the European Parliament.

Read the European Digital Rights report on web blocking here

Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.