Continuous debates rage over filtering software for schools, homes, and businesses. Does it violate the first amendment? Is it effective? What are the other options?

Lets start with the effectiveness of the filtering. That can really only be determined on an individual level. Most filtering software works off of key words and phrases so often more sites will be filtered than necessary and some sites may be let through because it doesn't have the specific words. Usually far more is filtered than needs to be thus eliminating some sites that may be beneficial.

For example, many medical sites may list several key words such as breasts which could cause them to be filtered and someone at a library may be trying to learn about symptoms of breast cancer. I think this is excessive filtering and so may the person looking for medical information. It may not be for a parent with a 12 year old boy at home just hitting puberty.

Unfortunately, the filtering software cannot meet the level of flexibility to suit everyone's needs in its current formats - Change is needed.

Many people also use the first amendment as an argument against filtering software in public places. The first amendment does protect the rights of people to produce a web site. It does not guarantee the right to read it where ever you want. Every person that wants to view porn, racism or other possibly objectionable sites can, but it needs to be done in a way not to offend or expose those that would be offended. (The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, not access to the internet)

Children need to be protected as well as those that could be offended. In order to accomplish this, access needs to be regulated in public places and schools. It just needs to be done in an effective manner. Many of those opposing filtering would probably be more agreeable to it if it was more effective.

Private businesses, though not usually mentioned, have the right to regulate as well. If I own an internet cafe, for example, and I choose not to allow pornography on my computers, that is my choice. The customers can go to a competitors if they want that or buy their own computer and internet access, My machines - My choice. This works both ways. I could also choose not to allow any Disney or G rated web sites - only porn. That is strictly a business decision for a privately owned company.

I offer another solution to filtering software that could accomplish these goals. I have heard others mention it, but no one has tried to implement it or push for its use by those (Microsoft & AOL) who make the web browsers. By creating a simple html tag for a ratings system, web screening can be made very effective. It can be made voluntary and I believe most sites would be happy to simply add one line of code to their web sites for the betterment of the web experience.

It would be a system similar to the movies but with additional descriptions like in the cable guides. A base rating can be given (G, PG, R, X) followed by further descriptive codes for violence, nudity, sex, drugs, educational, fitness, travel, homosexuality, religion, medical, sales, art, etc... It has the potential to be very specific by how violent - There is violence in old John Wayne westerns, but it is not the same as some of the current movies with fake body parts and blood splattering the camera.

The browsers can then have a setting to refuse to load pages with certain ratings/descriptions (obviously password protected for the parents). For example a parent might have all sites with the code for nudity or R rating closed off while a public library may close off X rated sites or more specifically sites with nudity unless it also has the medical code.

Sites without ratings could also be blocked off. This would also help determine the intentions of many adult oriented sites as to whether they are legit or trying to scam people or trick them into going to their site. They would then be open to lawsuits for misleading children to their site and this false information/ratings could be used by the parents in a lawsuit.

Implementation also would not be that difficult. If AOL or Microsoft simply added the feature to their browsers and gave the guidelines to the companies making the programming software like Dreamweaver, Front Page, etc., the public would start adding the code to their web sites. There would be no need for mass meetings between governing bodies or world internet organizations. Netscape and Explorer are the most dominating browsers and whoever first picks a guidelines (and allows others to use the same letter ratings) would instantly become the industry standard. This is hoping Microsoft and AOL would not try to sue each other if the other incorporate use of the same ratings (since it is for the betterment of the net not for profits).