Abstract
This paper outlines the five major filtering software products, and conducts a discussion of their pros and cons. The paper assesses how, when, or even if these filters should be utilized in schools or public libraries. The paper also attempts to answer whether filtering is unconstitutional censoring; whether public institutions have the right -- or the duty -- to filter; whether the companies that produce filtering software are truly objective; and whether there are better ways to keep minors from accessing adult material.
Abstract
I. Overview
II. Filtering Software
1. Cyber Patrol
2. Surf Watch
3. Net Nanny
4. CyberSitter
5. BESS
III. Is Filtering Interfering with "Free Speech" in Libraries and Schools?
IV. Who Are the "Guardians" of Morality on the Internet?
V. Some Conclusions

From the Paper
"Today's internet provides access for all kinds of information, from useful to salacious. Access is available to anyone with the knowledge of how to use a computer. Some of the information available for mature audiences in various web sites ought to be restricted to adults. There are five major software suppliers of filters that block unwanted information and make it unavailable to children. The problems of installing such filtering software in public locations, such as schools and libraries has brought a spirited defense of First Amendment rights. The problems are not that materials might be "censored" and unavailable to minors,. But who should do the filtering. The government has passed a "Communications Decency Act". However, the on-going arguments to be presented in the body of this research paper is whether the government has a right (or the power) to censor materials that should, properly, be the responsibility of individual parents."

Tags:filters, Cyber, Patrol, Surf, Watch, Net, Nanny, CyberSitter, BESS, free, speech, censorship, pornography, adult, content, children