Overblocking autonomy: the case of mandatory library filtering software.
In U.S. v. American Library Association (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandated that libraries receiving federal funding for public Internet access install content-filtering programs on computers which provide that access. These programs analyze inco...
| Publicado en: | Continental Philosophy Review Vol. 42; no. 1; pp. 81 - 101 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Mar2009
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=36925244&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 36925244 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13872842 OEF jtl: Continental Philosophy Review issn: 13872842 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2009 vid: 42 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 36925244 10.1007/s11007-009-9097-x ppf: 81 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 209KB tig: atl: Overblocking autonomy: the case of mandatory library filtering software. aug: au: Hull, Gordon affil: University of North Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte USA su: United States v. American Library Association (Supreme Court case) Internet & children Internet access for library users Deviant behavior Public libraries United States sug: subj: United States United States v. American Library Association (Supreme Court case) Internet & children Internet access for library users Deviant behavior Public libraries keyword: Child Internet Protection Act Hetero-normativity Internet Library filtering Privacy Public sphere Sexuality ab: In U.S. v. American Library Association (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandated that libraries receiving federal funding for public Internet access install content-filtering programs on computers which provide that access. These programs analyze incoming content, and block the receipt of objectionable material, in particular pornography. Thus, patrons at public libraries are protected from unintentionally (or intentionally) accessing objectionable material, and, in the case of minors, from accessing potentially damaging material. At least, that is the official story. In this paper, I develop three points. (1) I argue that CIPA and ALA are better read as examples of the enforcement of a regime of normative sexuality. The question of minors accessing pornography is only relevant to the official story insofar as it provides a rhetorically persuasive example of deviance from that normative regime. CIPAs full target includes information about topics such as homosexuality and contraception. (2) Rather than (or in addition to) punishing deviances directly, CIPA attempts to constitute a “public” in which such deviancy can never occur in the first place. Hence, the designation of a “public” space serves to domesticate alternative sexualities and to sanitize that space of sexual difference. (3) This interaction at the border of the public and private spheres offers an opportunity to reflect on and underscore the ways that subject formation and subjectivity are mediated through technological artifacts like the Internet. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Continental Philosophy Review is a copyright of Springer, 2009. All Rights Reserved. item: Continental Philosophy Review holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2009 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|