Content-Type: text/html

This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D7855715%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

A balancing act:
Predicting support for requiring Internet filters
  in public libraries and schools

Jennifer L. Lambe, Myriah S. Lipke & Elizabeth M. Perse
University of Delaware
Department of Communication


For inquiries, please contact:
Jennifer L. Lambe
Dept. of Communication
250 Pearson Hall
Newark, DE 19716
302-831-8028
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D7855715%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>


AV Needs:  Would require an overhead projector or an LCD projector 
for presentation


Submitted to the Mass Communication & Society Division of AEJMC,
April 2005
Abstract

A balancing act:
Predicting support for requiring Internet filters in public libraries 
and schools

Although the First Amendment seems absolute, it is balanced with 
other important interests.  Protecting children from Internet 
pornography has been a struggle for Congress.  The Children's 
Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires public libraries and schools 
to place filters on computers with Internet access to receive funding 
for new technologies.  This study examines variables predicting 
public attitudes about such filters.  News framing, internet 
pornography use and liberal-conservative self-ranking are among the 
statistically significant predictors.
A balancing act:
Predicting support for requiring Internet filters in public libraries 
and schools
Although the First Amendment seems absolute in its protection of 
freedom of speech and press, it is in practice a right continually 
balanced with other social and individual interests.  Every effort to 
limit expression is tied to perceptions of that expression's 
effects.  Calls for regulation are especially strong when children 
are among those who will be affected.  The question of how to protect 
children from sexual content on the Internet has been an ongoing 
struggle for members of Congress.  First Amendment jurisprudence has 
clearly stated that while protecting children is a legitimate 
government interest, the government may not limit adult access to 
content in the process (Reno v. ACLU, 1997).
Congressional efforts to find a way to balance these conflicting 
values – protecting children from the perceived harms of Internet 
pornography versus protecting freedom of expression – have been 
unsuccessful until the passage of the Children's Internet Protection 
Act (CIPA).[1]  CIPA requires public libraries and K-12 public 
schools to place Internet filters on their computers that have access 
to the Internet in order to receive government funding to supplement 
the costs of the new technologies.  In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme 
Court ruled CIPA is constitutional because adults can request that 
the filter be disabled (US v. American Library Association Inc., 2003).
The overarching argument of those opposed to CIPA is that filters 
block access to legitimate web sites as well as those pornographic in 
nature.  For example if a student were researching breast cancer, 
their search may be rejected because it includes the word 
"breast."  Overfiltering is a characteristic of virtually every 
filter on the market (Willems, 1998, Wolinsky, 2001).  The argument 
is that until filters are designed to be more selective, they should 
not be mandatory.  Swartz (2003) discusses how librarians and civil 
liberties groups contend that filters are a form of censorship that 
block a vast amount of valuable information along with 
pornography.  Another issue raised by CIPA critics is that even with 
Internet filters in place, a substantial portion of pornographic 
content still gets through to the user.  Hunter (2000) tested the 
effectiveness of four popular filters and found that not only did the 
filters let through 25% of the objectionable material but they also 
over-blocked 21% of non-objectionable material.
Supporters of CIPA, however, argue that these problems are minimal 
compared to the risks of allowing children unfettered access to the 
Internet.  Another argument in support of filters is for the 
protection of libraries and librarians.  The presence of filters is 
seen as a preventative action against potential lawsuits regarding 
children's access to inappropriate materials (Banks, 1998).
CIPA advocates also point out that public libraries and schools can 
opt out of the requirement by foregoing public funding for technology 
updates.  But opponents counter that it is precisely those libraries 
in areas of poverty that cannot provide access to technology unless 
they receive government support.  It is these areas where fewer 
people have home Internet access and therefore rely on public 
libraries for access.  It is these libraries that are not really 
given the choice of whether or not to implement filters on their 
computers (Haycock & Associates Inc., 2001).
This is a particularly difficult issue, because the goals of both 
sides are in and of themselves noble.  But when these goals come into 
conflict, it is challenging to strike an acceptable balance.  The 
purpose of this study is to identify variables that influence a 
person's decision about the appropriateness of a government 
requirement to install Internet filters in public libraries and 
schools.  Three different categories of variables that might 
influence people's attitudes about this issue were 
examined:  variables internal to an individual (such as age and 
gender), media use, and news framing.
Understanding public opinion on topics such as this has practical 
implications.  It can assist educational programs designed to inform 
parents and their children about the perceived harms of objectionable 
content.  It can assist these programs by identifying characteristics 
of parents who do not take precautions to protect their children from 
objectionable content.  The programs can then target these parents 
specifically.  It can also provide insight for individuals and 
organizations attempting to protect First Amendment rights by 
creating a profile of the type of individual likely to support 
restrictions on the freedom of speech.  Both sides can use this 
information to create informational campaigns countering the opposing 
view.  Finally, and possibly most important, gaining knowledge 
concerning public attitudes about freedom of speech and new 
technologies is an integral part of establishing the boundaries of 
the law to apply to our technologically changing society.
Literature Review
Age
Although there is conflicting evidence about the relationship between 
age and one's willingness to restrict certain forms of expression 
(Lambe, 2002), when the issue under examination involves pornography, 
evidence points strongly toward older people as being more likely to 
support restrictions.  For example, Thompson, Chaffee, and Oshagan 
(1990) found that older people tend to be proponents of regulating 
pornography.  Another study found a similar correlation significantly 
linking older people and likeliness to support censorship of 
pornography (Rojas et al., 1996).  Lambe (2002; 2004) also found 
support for this trend.  Although their study examined sexual and 
sexually violent media rather than pornography, Fisher, Cook, and 
Shirkey (1994) found evidence that older people are more willing to 
support restrictions than younger people when sexual content is involved.
Like the last set of studies mentioned, the current study involved 
sexual content, specifically pornographic Internet content.  Based on 
the strong support in previous research for older people to be more 
likely proponents of pornography restrictions than younger people, 
the following hypothesis was proposed:
H1: Older people are more likely than younger people to endorse 
Internet filters in libraries.
Gender
The differences between men and women when it comes to willingness to 
censor are also dependent upon the context.  Although many studies 
(Andsager & Miller, McLeod et al., 1997; 1998; Rucinski & Salmon, 
1990; Suedfeld et al., 1994) have not found a significant difference 
between genders when it comes to censorship the majority of studies 
that do find a difference point to men as being more tolerant of 
First Amendment freedoms.  Despite this, Keum et al. (2003) found 
evidence supporting that in general, females have a higher tolerance 
for extremist groups than men.
Research supports a slight tendency for women to support censorship 
more than men.  Using a scale to measure overall willingness to 
censor, Lambe (2002) found that women hold stronger censorship 
attitudes than men.  Along these same lines Stouffer (1955) and Nunn 
et al. (1978) found that men are more willing than women to protect 
civil liberties for controversial groups.  Evidence supports that 
gender has a similar influence when it come to tolerance of free 
expression (Immerwahr et al., 1982; Wilson, 1975).  White (1986) 
found that women are more likely to support the removal of library 
books by controversial authors than men.
This trend of men being more tolerant is consistent with research 
regarding sexual content.  Lambe (2002; 2004) found that women are 
more likely than men to support censorship of pornography.  Cowan 
(1992) sampled recipients of the National Organization of Women 
Newsletter and found that gender was related to people's attitude 
toward control of pornography with men less in favor of 
control.  Fisher et al. (1994), Gunther, (1995), Herrman and Bordner 
(1983), and Thompson et al. (1990) have all found consistent results 
showing men have more tolerance for pornography than women.  Because 
the issue of Internet filters involves censoring pornography, we propose:
H2: Women are more likely than men to support requiring Internet 
filters in libraries.
Education
	A person's level of education is another variable that has provided 
insight into categorizing people's opinions of civil liberties 
issues.  Although some studies have found no relationship (Hense & 
Wright, 1992; Rojas et al. 1996; Suedfeld et al., 1994), overall, 
studies suggest that those who are less educated tend to be less 
tolerant of extending civil liberties to all.  For example, in an 
analysis of several studies Erskine (1970) found that those with a 
higher level of education tend to support freedom of speech more than 
those with a lower education level.  Wilson (1975) also examined 
education and its relation to belief in freedom of speech and 
press.  He found that those who were higher educated were more likely 
to have a high belief in freedom of speech and press.  Consistent 
results were found for willingness to support the removal of books by 
controversial authors from public libraries.  Those with less 
education were more willing to ban the books (White, 1986).
	Studies examining political tolerance have had similar 
findings.  Nunn et al. (1978) found that the higher a person's 
education the more politically tolerant they are.  Sullivan et al. 
(1982) also found that education is positively correlated with 
political tolerance.  Stouffer's (1955) research also supports this claim.
	This connection between level of education and tolerance holds true 
for pornography as well.  Gunther's (1995) research shows a negative 
correlation between education and support for regulation of 
pornography.  Similarly, Herrman and Bordner (1983) found that 
individuals with a higher level of education tended to be more 
accepting of erotica.  Thompson et al. (1990) found similar 
results.  Although for the most part those with less education tend 
to support censorship of pornography more than those with more 
education, Lambe (2002; 2004) has found some deviance from this 
trend.  She found that individuals with some college or vocational 
training were actually the least likely to censor 
pornography.  Despite this finding, Lambe's research still supports 
that those with a high school diploma or less are the most willing to 
censor pornographic content.  Only a few studies show no significant 
relationship between education and tolerance for pornographic content 
(Hense and Wright, 1992; Rojas et al., 1996).
H3: Individuals with less education will be more likely than those 
with more education to support requiring Internet filters in libraries.
Liberal-Conservative self-ranking
Studies using a liberal/conservative self-ranking scale have found 
that when differences exist in censorship attitudes, it is generally 
the more conservative respondents who endorse censorship (Lambe, 
2002; Keum et al., 2003; McLeod et al., 1997; 1998; Rojas et al., 
1996; Suedfeld et al., 1994; Wilson, 1975).  Some studies, though, 
have found no relationship between how a people rank themselves in 
terms of their political ideology and their acceptance of civil 
liberties (Hansen & Moore, 1992; Sullivan et al., 1982; Thompson et 
al., 1990; Thompson, 1995).
H4: People who categorize themselves as conservative will be more 
likely to support requiring Internet filters than people who say they 
are liberal.
Religiosity
	Generally speaking, religiosity has been positively correlated with 
a willingness to restrict civil liberties, including freedom of 
speech and press.  This has held true across a variety of expressive 
contexts, including general attitudes about freedom of expression 
(Anderson & Reinhardt, 1987; Paulson, 1999; Rojas et al., 1996; 
Thompson, 1995), and sexually explicit media content (Fisher et al., 
1994; Herrman & Bordner, 1983; Rojas, et al., 1996; Thompson et al., 1990).
	A few studies, though, have found no significant relationship 
between religiosity and censorship attitudes. For example, Rojas et 
al. (1996) found that religiosity did not predict attitudes toward 
censorship of television violence.  Most relevant for this study, 
Cowan (1992) found that religiosity did not help predict whether a 
subject would endorse legislative control of pornography.
RQ1:  What is the relationship between religiosity and support for 
requiring Internet filters?
Commitment to General Democratic Principles
	Studies have supported that the strength of an individual's 
commitment to general democratic principles is related to how willing 
they are to censor free expression.  Lambe (2004) found that when a 
person had a high commitment to democratic principles they were more 
tolerant of hate speech and pornography.  They have also been found 
to be more politically tolerant in general (Marcus et al., 1995; 
Sullivan et al. 1981; Sullivan et al., 1982; Thompson, 1995).  This 
study tested to see if this commitment to general democratic 
principles carries over to the issue of Internet filters with the 
following hypothesis:
H5: An individual with a higher commitment to civil liberties will be 
less likely to support requiring Internet filters in libraries than 
an individual with a lower commitment to civil liberties.
Media Use
	The amount an individual uses certain types of media has been linked 
to their censorship attitudes in several studies, although, the 
findings have been inconsistent.  Some studies have found that those 
who have more exposure to the media (particularly newspapers) tend to 
have more lenient attitudes about censorship (Lambe, 2002; McLeod et 
al., 1998; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997; Wilson, 1975).  Despite newspaper 
reading having a negative correlation with willingness to censor, 
television use has not been found to be a significant predictor of 
general attitudes toward censorship (Lambe, 2002; Salwen & Driscoll, 
1997) but has been found to be positively correlated with willingness 
to censor political speech and pornography (Lambe, 2002).  Rojas et 
al. (1996) and Salwen (1998) found no support for the linkage between 
media use and support for general willingness to censor.
The Internet has been under recent examination to see if it has any 
predictive power when it comes to censorship attitudes.  Lambe (2002) 
found that those who use the Internet less are more willing to censor 
abortion speech and pornography.  Because of mixed findings about 
media use and the lack of research defining the influence of Internet 
use on attitudes of civil liberties, the following research questions 
were examined:
RQ2: Does an individual's media use (including newspapers, television 
news and the Internet) predict their support for requiring Internet 
filters in libraries?
RQ3: Does an individual's amount of Internet use in libraries predict 
their support for requiring Internet filters in libraries?
Pornography Use
	Pornography use is another variable that has been found to correlate 
with attitudes toward censorship.  Cowan (1992) found that those who 
had less exposure to pornography were more likely to have a 
"procontrol" attitude towards pornographic material.  Thompson et al. 
(1990) found that those who had more exposure to sexual movies and 
magazines had less conservative attitudes toward regulating 
pornography.  Another study conducted by Fisher et al. (1994) found 
that those who were more sexually conservative expressed a greater 
support for censorship.  Based upon these previous studies it was 
predicted that pornography use would be correlated with lower support 
for the use of Internet filters in libraries:
H6:  People who do not use pornography will tend to support requiring 
Internet filters in libraries more than people who use pornography.
News Framing as a Variable
One of the reasons why it is difficult to determine public opinion of 
civil liberties issues is due the multitude of influences a person 
has when formulating their opinion.  Previous research suggests that 
because of these influences people often have trouble deciding which 
side they agree with when it comes to rights (Chong, 1993).  Framing 
can reveal some of these underlying uncertainties individuals 
have.  Framing is the process by which media define and construct a 
political issue or public controversy (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997).
An individual almost always obtains information from outside sources 
to assist in constructing a point of view on a given 
issue.  Depending upon how that outside source frames the issue, 
individuals may form very different perspectives.  The issue of 
framing is examined by Nelson et al. (1997) who focus on how the 
media influences people's perceptions of civil liberties issues 
through the framing of a news story.  By publicly stating the 
underlying causes and consequences of social and political issues, 
framing affects public opinion by shaping individuals' view points.
Nelson et al. (1997) conducted an experiment using two news stories 
about a Ku Klux Klan rally.  The first story framed the issue as a 
free speech story while the other framed the rally as a disruption of 
public order.  Although both news stories were covering the same 
event, each provoked different views from the participants who 
watched them.  Subjects who read the "free speech" news story 
reported a higher level of tolerance for Ku Klux Klan speeches than 
subjects who read the "disruption of public order" frame.
Other research has been conducted that support this claim.  In 
particular, Nelson and Oxley (1999) also conducted a study using news 
articles with manipulated content in order to examine framing 
issues.  The study manipulated a newspaper story concerning the 
building of a new hotel and convention complex in Florida's marsh 
lands.  One article emphasized the economic benefits including 
thousands of new jobs while the other article emphasized the 
environmental impact including the consequence of endangering animal 
species.  Participants in the economic framing condition were found 
to have significantly more favorable opinions toward the proposed 
construction than participants in the environmental framing condition.
Keum et al. (2003) attempted to discover what influences people's 
reactions to news about civil liberties issues.  Their findings 
suggest that people are influenced by both the media and their own 
views.  The way in which a story is framed by the media is important 
in how an individual will interpret the story.  People's ideological 
beliefs and individual dispositions work in conjunction with media 
framing to influence people's reactions to news about civil liberties issues.
This study tested whether or not media framing played a role in 
people's perceptions of first amendment rights, specifically 
examining their support for requiring Internet filters.  Two news 
articles were fabricated, one that was framed to emphasize the 
importance of protecting children and the other stressing possible 
consequences on free expression.  We predict:
H7: Participants who read the fabricated newspaper article that 
emphasizes the importance of protecting children will be more likely 
to support requiring Internet filters in libraries than the 
participants who read the fabricated newspaper article that portrays 
the possible consequences of Internet filters on free expression.
Method
Participants
	Due to resource limitations, a purposive sample was used for this 
study.  A general random sample was not financially feasible, but it 
was important to achieve variance on some of the key independent 
measures, including age, education, political ideology and 
religiosity.  Subjects included students enrolled in an introductory 
communication research methods course at the University of XXXXX, 
adults with children recruited by students in another communication 
course at the same University, parents of students at a music school 
in Montgomery County, PA, and parents of children at a daycare in 
Bucks County, PA.  The total was N=314.  The sample was 57% female, 
and the mean age was 37.
Measures
		The dependent variable this study examined was support for Internet 
filters in public libraries.  Respondents were asked to indicate 
their agreement (1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree) with 
seven items focusing on the implications of Internet filters in 
libraries.  These items were developed specifically for this 
study.  A pre-test of the measurement device was conducted during 
April, 2004 using 10 students enrolled in an undergraduate 
communication class.  The pretest indicated that the scale was 
reliable (a = .81) so all seven items were used in the study.  The 
items, their range, means, and standard deviations from this study's 
data are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Support for Internet Filters Scale
Item
Range
M
SD
Internet filters are beneficial tools for libraries.
1 – 5
3.45
1.29
Internet filters should be required in public places with Internet access.
1 – 5
3.4
1.33
The benefits of Internet filters in libraries outweigh the costs.
1 – 5
3.23
1.29
I support requiring Internet filters in libraries.
1 – 5
3.26
1.36
Requiring Internet filters in libraries is against our first 
amendment rights as Americans.*
1 – 5
3.93
1.47
Internet filters in libraries do not interfere with anyone's first 
amendment rights.
1 – 5
2.88
1.35
A government regulation requiring Internet filters in libraries and 
other public places would have a negative effect on society.*
1 – 5
3.97
1.43
* reversed items
In this study, the first item of the scale was eliminated for further 
analysis in order to improve reliability.  Also, the items were 
recoded so that a higher score would equal more support for Internet 
filters.  Support for Internet filters ranged from 1-5 (M = 3.4, SD = 
1.14, a = .91).
Both age and gender were simple self-report measures. Participants 
were also asked to indicate their highest level of education from 
these choices: a high school education or less, some college or 
vocational school, graduate of a 4-year college, or 
graduate/professional school.
	Liberal-conservative self-ranking was assessed on a scale from 
1=extremely liberal to 7=extremely conservative.  Similarly, level of 
religiosity was measured by a self-report item ranging from 1=not 
religious at all to 4=deeply religious.
	The 7-item democratic principles scale is derived from Marcus, et 
al. (1995).  In their book, With Malice Toward Some:  How People Make 
Civil Liberties Judgments, Marcus et al. (1995) demonstrate that a 
person's standing decision regarding democratic principles has both a 
direct and an indirect influence on political tolerance judgments in 
a specific situation.  They define a standing decision as a "default 
decision rule" (p. 59).  In other words, in a particular situation 
each individual has a "default" level of commitment to democratic 
principles, and this level of commitment is an important element of 
their decision-making when faced with concrete civil liberties 
issues.  Some of the items on this scale are "No matter what a 
person's political beliefs are, he is entitled to the same legal 
rights and protections as anyone else," and "Society shouldn't have 
to put up with those who have political ideas that are extremely 
different from the views of the majority" (this item is 
reverse-coded).  The alpha for this scale is .71.
	Media use was measured by asking participants to report how often 
they read newspapers, watch television news, and use the 
Internet.  Choices ranged from 1 (almost never) to 4 (every 
day).  Respondents were also asked to indicate how often they use the 
Internet in a public library, how often they view pornography, and 
how often they view pornography on the Internet.  Possible responses 
included never, rarely, several times a year, about once a month, and 
about once a week.
Frame
	To test the effects of news framing on support for requiring 
Internet filters, two news stories were created (see Appendix 
A).  One news story framed Internet filters as restricting First 
Amendment rights (anti-filter version) while the other news story 
framed Internet filters as a means to protect children from 
objectionable material (pro-filter version).  A control group 
received no frame.
	106 respondents received the pro-filter frame; 105 received the 
anti-filter frame; 103 were in the control group.  The democratic 
principles scale was included before the frame in every 
condition.  In addition, to control for order effects and variance 
due to sensitization, three different orders of the questions that 
followed the framing manipulation were created.  To include the three 
framing conditions and the three orders of questions, nine 
questionnaire versions were created.
Findings
Hypothesis 1
H1 predicted that age would be positively linked to support for 
Internet filters in libraries.  This hypothesis was supported; age 
was positively correlated with the support for Internet filters 
variable: r = .17, p < .001.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis predicted that females would be more likely 
than males to support Internet filters in libraries.  A t-test found 
no support for the hypothesis.  Females (M = 3.48) were no more 
likely to support filters than males: (M = 3.28): t(310) = 1.48,
p = .14.
Hypothesis 3
The third hypothesis predicted that education would be negatively 
linked to support for Internet filters.  A Pearson correlation found 
no support for this prediction:
r = .07, p = .10.
Hypothesis 4
H4 predicted that conservatism would be positively correlated with 
support for filters.  A one-tailed correlation supported this 
hypothesis: r = .25, p < .001.
Hypothesis 5
The fifth hypothesis predicted that commitment to democratic 
principles would be negatively related to support for requiring 
Internet filters in libraries.  A one-tailed Pearson correlation 
found support for this hypothesis: r = -.14, p < .01.
Hypothesis 6
The sixth hypothesis predicted that pornography use would be related 
to support for requiring Internet filters in libraries.  This 
hypothesis was supported.  Both Internet pornography use (r = .11, p 
< .05) and general pornography use (r = .16, p < .01) were linked to 
less support for Internet filters in libraries.
Hypothesis 7
	A univariate ANOVA was used to test H7, which predicted that 
participants who read the fabricated news article that emphasized the 
importance of protecting children would be more likely to support 
requiring Internet filters in libraries than participants who read 
the fabricated news article portraying the possible consequences of 
Internet filters on free expression.  The frame made a significant 
difference in an individual's likeliness to support requiring 
Internet filters in libraries: F(2, 310)=12.06, p<.001.
	Post-hoc t-tests were conducted to identify the specific frame 
effects.  Compared to the pro-filters condition (M=3.55), respondents 
who were exposed to the anti-filters frame (M=2.98) showed 
significantly less support for Internet filters in libraries: 
t(209)=3.69, p<.001  The anti-filter group also supported filters 
significantly less than the control group (M=3.68): t(205)=4.63, 
p<.001.  There was no difference between the pro-filters condition 
and the control group: t(206)=.84, p=.40.
	A final test was conducted for H7 to determine if any covariates 
were responsible for the framing effect.  The framing effect remained 
significant when age, self-ranked liberalism-conservatism, general 
commitment to democratic principles, pornography use, and library 
Internet use were used as covariates.
Research Question 1
	The first research question asked about the relationship between 
religiosity and support for requiring Internet filters in 
libraries.  Higher levels of religiosity are associated with greater 
support for requiring Internet filters (r=.15, p<.01).
Research Question 2:
	This question asked about the relationship between media use and 
support for requiring Internet filters in libraries.  While both 
television news use (r=-.22, p<.001) and newspaper use (r=-.18, 
p<.01) are negatively related to the dependent variable, Internet use 
(r=-.04, p=.54) is unrelated.
Research Question 3:
	The third research question asked about the relationship between 
Internet use in libraries and support for requiring Internet 
filters.  A negative relationship was observed (r=-.12, p<.05).
	A final analysis was conducted to examine the robustness of these 
zero-order relationships.  Regression analysis provides an indication 
of what variables remain significant predictors of support for 
requiring Internet filters in libraries when the other independent 
variables are also taken into account.  Only variables that had a 
significant zero-order relationship were included in the regression (Table 2).
Table 2
Regression Analysis for Predictors of Support
For Requiring Internet Filters in Libraries
Variable
R2
_
t
p=
Age
-.01
-.13
.90
Liberalism/conservatism**
.16
2.6
.01
Democratic principles
-.09
-.13
.13
Religiosity
.01
-.16
.90
Pornography use**
.28
2.54
.01
Internet pornography use
-.20
-1.84
.07
Television news use*
-.14
-2.23
.03
Newspaper use
-.05
-.64
.52
Library Internet use
.07
1.27
.21
Frame***
.22
4.10
.00
Total R2***
.17
.00

p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001
Overall, the variables included explained 17% of the variance in 
support for requiring Internet filters: F(10, 289) = 5.99, 
p<.001  The analysis revealed that several variables remain 
significant predictors of support for Internet filters in libraries, 
even when the other independent variables are taken into account 
(Table 2).  Conservatism was a positive predictor of support for 
filters.  General pornography use is also a positive predictor, which 
is surprising given that the zero-order relationship was 
negative.  Internet pornography use remained a negative predictor, as 
was television news use.  The manipulation of the news story frame 
was also a significant predictor.
Discussion
	The primary purpose of this study was to identify variables that 
predict support for requiring Internet filters in public libraries 
and public schools.  This requires a balancing act between two 
competing social goals – protecting freedom of speech, and protecting 
children from potential harm.  Identifying the variables that predict 
support for filters can provide valuable information about the 
factors that enter in to such decision-making.
	The hypotheses and research questions examined zero-order 
relationships between support for requiring Internet filters in 
libraries and a series of independent variables that have been 
important in previous studies about censorship attitudes.  For the 
most part, these hypotheses were supported.  Age, 
liberal-conservative self-ranking, a general commitment to democratic 
principles, pornography use and internet pornography use, and the 
framing manipulation were significantly related in the expected 
direction.  The only exceptions were gender and education, which were 
not significantly related in either direction.  The research 
questions showed additional significant relationships with 
religiosity (positive), television news use (negative), newspaper use 
(negative), and use of the Internet at the library 
(positive).  General library use was not a significant predictor.
	The regression analysis showed that several of the variables 
remained significant predictors when the other independent variables 
were included.  Perhaps most surprising is the strength of the frame 
manipulation.  This highlights the importance of media coverage of 
such issues in terms of public opinion formation.  The zero-order 
relationships showed that the control group and the pro-filter frame 
were not significantly different; this may suggest that the media 
framed this issue as one of protecting children rather than as a free 
speech issue.  A content analysis of media coverage compared with 
public opinion of the issue would provide further insight.
Limitations and Directions for future research
	The purposive nature of this study limits the generalizability of 
its results.  The sample was chosen to provide variance on several 
key independent variables – including age, education, political 
ideology, and religiosity – so the relationship between these 
variables and support for requiring Internet filters in libraries 
should not be discounted.  However, further research should be done 
using a randomized national sample.  A national sample would provide 
variance on other important individual variables, including race and 
geographic location.
	The relationships described in this study are correlational in 
nature, and therefore cannot establish causality.  However, 
establishing that a relationship exists is a first step in 
identifying those who may (or may not) be persuaded by educational 
campaigns designed to modify public opinion on this topic.
References
Anderson, T. R., & Reinhardt, H. (1987). The current status of 
freedom of expression in
Minnesota. Minneapolis: Minnesota Newspaper Foundation.
Andsanger, J. L. & Miller M. M. (1994). Willingness of journalists 
and public to support	freedom of expression. Newspaper Research 
Journal, 15, 1, 102-114.
Banks, M. A. (1998). Filtering the net in libraries: The case 
(mostly) in favor. Computers in Libraries, March, 50-52.
Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and 
liberties.	American Journal of Political Science., 37, 3, 867-899.
Cowan, G. (1992) Feminist attitudes toward pornography control. 
Psychology of Women	Quarterly, 16, 165-177.
Erskine, H. (1970). The polls: Freedom of Speech. Public Opinion 
Quarterly, 34, 3,
483-496.
Fisher, R. D., Cook, I. J., & Shirkey, E. C. (1994). Correlates of 
support for censorship of	sexual, sexually violent, and violent 
media. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 3,	229-240.
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person 
perception and support	for censorship of pornography. Journal of 
Communication45, 1, 27-38.
Hansen, E. S. & Moore, R. L. (1992). Public attitudes toward libel: 
Do newspaper readers	and editors see eye-to-eye? Newspaper Research 
Journal, 13, 3, 2-13.
Haycock, K. & Associates Inc. ALA challenges children's Internet 
Protect Act. Teacher
Librarian, 28, 5, 51.
Hense, R. & Wright, C. (1992). The development of the attitudes 
toward censorship	questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social 
Psychology, 22, 1666-1675.
Herrman, M. S., Bordner, D. C. (1983). Attitudes toward pornography 
in a southern	community. Criminology, 21, 3, 349-374.
Hunter, C. D. (2000). Internet filter effectiveness: testing over- 
and underinclusive blocking decisions of four popular web filters. 
Social Science Computer Review, 18, 2, 214-222.
Immerwahr, J., Doble, J., Bogart, L., & Kalven, J. (1994). Public 
attitudes toward	freedom of the press. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 
2, 177-194.
Keum, H., Hillback, E., Rojas, H. Hove, T., Gil de Zuniga, H., 
Humane, A., Shah, D. V.,	& McLeod, D. M. (2003) News framing of civil 
liberties restrictions: Conditional	effects on security concerns and 
tolerance judgments. Paper submitted to Human	Communication Research.
Lambe, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of censorship: Reconceptualizing 
public willingness to
censor. Communication Law & Policy, 7, 2, (187-235).
Lambe, J. L. (2004). Who wants to censor pornography & hate speech? 
Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 279-299.
Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. 
(1995). With Malice	Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties 
Judgments. Cambridge:	Cambridge University Press.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland Jr., W. P., Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support 
for censorship of	violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of 
the third-person effect.	Communication Research, 24, 2, 153-174.
McLeod, D. M., Sotirovic, M., Voakes, P. S., Guo, Z., & Huang, K.-Y. 
(1998). A model	of public support for first amendment rights. 
Communication Law and Policy,
3, 4, 479-514.
Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A. & Oxley, Z.M. (1997).  Media Framing of a 
Civil Liberties
Conflict and Its Effects on Tolerance.  American Political Science 
Review, 96(3), 567-583.
Nunn, C. Z., Crockett Jr., H. J., & Williams Jr., J. A. (1978). 
Tolerance for	Nonconformity: A National Survey of Americans' Changing 
Commitment to Civil	Liberties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paulson, K. A. (1999). State of the First Amendment 1999. Nashville, 
TN: Freedom
Forum First Amendment Center.
Reno, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. Case no. 96-511, 1997.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1995). For the good of 
others: Censorship and the	third person-effect. International Journal 
of Public Opinion Research, 8, 2,
163-186.
Rucinski, D. & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The 'other' as the vulnerable 
voter: A study of the	third-person effect in the 1988 U.S. 
presidential campaign. International Journal	of Public Opinion 
Research, 2, 4, 345-368.
Salwen, M. B. & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person 
perception in	support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson 
trial. Journal of Communication,	47, 2, 60-78.
Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A 
Cross-section of the	Nation Speaks Its Mind. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Suedfeld, P., Steel, G. D., & Schmidt, P. W. (1994). Political 
ideology and attitudes	toward censorship. Journal of Applied Social 
Psychology, 24, 9, 765-781.
Sullivan, J. L., Marcus, G. E., Feldman, S., & Piereson J. E. (1981). 
The sources of	political tolerance: A multivariate analysis. The 
American Political Science	Review, 75, 1, 92-106.
Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political 
Tolerance and American	Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, N. (2003). Should libraries censor patrons' surfing? (Up 
front: news, trends &	analysis). Information Management Journal, 37, 3, 6.
Thompson, M. E. (1995). The impact of need for cognition on thinking 
about free speech	issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 
72, 4, 934-947.
Thompson, M. E., Chaffee, S. H., & Oshagan H. H. (1990). Regulating 
pornography: A	public dilemma. Journal of Communication, 40, 3, 72-83.

United States, et al., Appellants v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.
  02-361, 2003.
Willems, H. (1998). Filtering the net in libraries: The case (mostly) 
against. Computers in	Libraries, March, 55-58.
Wilson, W. C. (1975). Belief in freedom of speech and Press. Journal 
of Social Issues,	31, 2, 69-76.
White, H. D. (1986). Majorities for censorship. Library Journal, 111, 31-38.
Wolinsky, A. (2001). Mandating the Wrong Filters. Teacher Librarian, 29, 1, 26.
Appendix A:
News story frames




FILTERS PROTECT

Susan Millbury, a Delaware Valley librarian, said she received 3 
complaints already this month from library patrons who were with 
their children and unexpectedly saw another library user viewing 
pornography on the Internet.  "It's a difficult situation," Millbury 
said, "we've tried posting rules.  We've even tried educating parents 
and children."
One of Millbury's largest concerns is for the protection of 
children.  She explains it is her job as a librarian to make the 
library a safe place for kids.  "It is easy to see the absurdity of 
uncontrolled Internet access for children and other patrons," Millbury said.
Several other libraries in the area have turned to Internet filters 
to sort through the vast amount of information on the 
Internet.  Internet filters are a pro-active way in which librarians 
and others in charge of public Internet access can prevent 
pornography from making its way into public venues.  Internet filters 
are computer software programs that assist these professionals in 
restricting pornographic content.
Millbury said she and other librarians she works with are planning to 
implement Internet filters in their library as soon as the board of 
trustees passes their request.
Millbury said Internet filters will be significantly more effective 
than other methods they have tried. She adds, "My staff and I won't 
be content until we know that we've done our job as best we can."








FILTERS ARE FLAWED

Susan Millbury, a Delaware Valley librarian, said she received 3 
complaints already this month from library patrons who were unable to 
access information on the World Wide Web due to Internet 
filters.  "I've had it," Millbury said, "we've tried lowering the 
filter settings but they still seem to block legitimate websites."
One of Millbury's largest concerns is full access to 
information.  She explains that it is her job as a librarian to make 
sure people are able to have access to a variety of 
information.  "You never know which websites are going to be blocked 
by a filter."
Several other libraries in the area have removed the Internet filters 
from their computers.  Internet filters are seen as a poor substitute 
for librarians who otherwise select content in a pro-active 
manner.  Millbury explains, it is these librarians and other 
professionals who should be choosing content, not computer software.
Millbury said she and other librarians she works with are planning to 
remove the Internet filters in their library as soon as the board of 
trustees passes their request.
"Internet filters are only harming our library," Millbury said, 
"finally our patrons won't have to feel like they're only able to 
access part of the information that's available to them."
[1]  The previous pieces of legislation on this issue (the 
Communications Decency Act and the Child's Online Protection Act) 
were found unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment 
rights of adults in order to serve the goal of protecting children.