Side opposition argues that because most-secondary school pupils are able to use proxies and get around school filters, the filters should not be used.

This argument falls down in a number of important regards. Firstly, that is not a problem with filtering, but with filtering done badly. There are technical means by which the proxy-problem can be resolved: known proxy sites can be banned, or the school can shift from using a domain-name or IP-list ban, to some sort of word-filter which would not be constrained.

Secondly, not all students are technically proficient. They, at least, would be protected.

Thirdly, by forcing students to go around a ban in order access a questionable website, you prevent them from doing so accidently.

Lastly, there is a powerful declarative effect when the school says that certain subjects are innappropriate. Before a student can access a forbidden website, he or she must first realize that the school-community considers that sort of behaviour to be bad.

In response to this point, side proposition will demonstrate that the system does not hinder school-work to the point where the benefits of the system are outweighed.

It is extremely unlikely that a filter will ban all sites with information on a topic. While it may require additional research, the marginal costs of this are outweighed by the protection the system provides.

Furthermore, most school filtering systems includev a mechanism by which a teacher can override the ban, allowing access to a improperly banned website. This allows research to continue in the event that a ban was applied improperly.

Whether or not a child can "handle" certain types of material, or if such a question is bogus to begin with, are decisions better left to individual children's parents.

The school may provide guidance to parents regarding such issues, but the amount of freedom given to the children is something the parents should decide. It is their responsibility. Allowing students all-access on the school Internet would basically undermine the efforts of those parents who deem it moral to protect their children from certain types of material. You may not agree with the parents' decisions but they are the parents, not you.

Therefore, all-access would send out a double-standard (they allow this at school, but not at home) and that would be just as counter-productive to the child's growth.

On the other hand if the school chooses to be conservative on the issue, it is less likely to be taken as a "double standard" because the school has a legitimate, utilitarian reason to do so. School is a place for work, not for surfing porn sites buying Harry Potter paraphernalia, conversing with potential pedophiles and viewing tutorials on rolling marijuana joints. Even companies keep tabs on their workers' browsing activity to ensure time is not being wasted. So the school is perfectly right to do the same. And the children with liberal parents can visit any site they want... at home.

While such education is of utmost importance, it is very hard to convince young minds that any kind of material would be "a threat" to them. Most kids are not that aware of their own mental, emotional, and ethical development as human beings.

It is hard, for instance, to convince a young girl that watching pornographic sites is "bad" for her. Most girls already realize that when many girls turn 18 they sell their bodies and have their sex tapes put on the web to make easy money. This is true especially in bad economic times like this when high school grads have few prospects of finding a job. There is no point hiding from them what goes on because eventually they are going to find out anyway.

Then most youngsters will reason, since they already know about it, why shouldnt they watch the videos where they are actually having the sex? Educators are more aware than the children, that allowing such videos to be viewed, while not a direct threat, tends to normalize and encourage such behavior. Especially since the videos only show the pleasurable aspect of such behavior and not the negative consequences that often ensue. Thus the educators may rightly wish for some sort of control over browsing activity. The children will not see it that way.

Similarly, one may wish to keep an emotionally troubled male student from visiting sites that encourage violent behavior. However most boys, actually not even adults are emotionally self-aware enough to tell themselves: "this site includes the views of a radical terrorist and by reading this I may not immediately be convinced to go out and start shooting people but I am already in an emotionally downward spiral and this sort of material will only add to my angst and indeed may even push me over the edge by subtly convincing me that killing is a justifiable act."

If they are curious enough, they will look at it. And then they will want to taste it. Forbidden fruit.

Therefore, while good education on "safe browsing" is important, one must be not be naive about human nature and be realistic about its actual benefits.