There should be no
restrictions of use of the Internet in an academic library. Filters have
been used to justify protecting children from pornography or violence in web
sites, but there can be no such justification for college students. The
very nature of higher education lends itself to open access to the
Internet. Complete and unfettered research depends on accessing all
possible sources and questioning the validity and truth of each source.
The ability to encounter ridiculous information is how one knows it is
ridiculous. If the only information students received was approved by
faculty, or some other group, it would represent a dilution of knowledge.
The variances of student’s views and backgrounds bring many “truths” into
question (as well as the validation of many truths).
According to Rawls (1971),
those behind the “veil of ignorance” would not know whether they were adults,
children, or college students, therefore, the need for unfiltered access to
information is in the best interest of the least advantaged. Also, they
would agree that intellectual freedom and access to information is a “primary
good,” and having unfiltered access to the Internet is one way to insure that
they have all of the information to become responsible and informed members of
society.
Mill (1859) does not find
justification in censorship of any kind. Restricting access to the
Internet by college students is illogical. If there is any group in
society who should have access to all the information possible, it is students
who are in a quest for knowledge – students who can find the truth and test
“dead dogmas.” Of course, Mill does not state that students are better
equipped for this task; that is the inference for the academic librarian.
Whether the Internet is
filled with nonsense is irrelevant. The ability to access any and all
information is the primary good. In "Access
to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of the
Library Bill of Rights," the