ALA Argument Analysis: The Children's Internet Protection Act

The thesis provided by McCain is evident in the beginning of the essay and claims its importance by saying “The Children’s Internet Protection Act is designed to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful materials when they access the Internet in the schools and in the library (McCain, 1999).” The thesis provided by the ALA is “The use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protect speech violations the Library Bill of Rights American Library 2000).” The claim that the ALA is making is clear and the thesis is found after giving background to the problem. The purpose was clear in both arguments. Senator McCain’s purpose was to bring an act before the president and Congress. I believe he wants to call Congress to action on the issue of explicit materials, but he also wants to have Congress accept an additional viewpoint to an Act he had previously introduced. The purpose the ALA article was to argue against Senator McCain’s act and teach the reader what the Senator’s act would mean. This was a call to action. ALA is trying to convince people that the act has a large down fall. Both arguments are logical and reasonable. I see no evidence of farfetched ideas or logical fallacies.

McCain has strong reasoning behind his act and I agree that the internet in school and library’s should be given the opportunity to have safeguards in place. But, ALA provides more details and is correct in saying blocking public speech is against the Constitution. Libraries and schools should have the options to use readily available filtering software but not be forced to use them. If McCain would explain exactly what would consist of his new act then he might have convinced me but he just explains why Congress should approve. Though I assume the actually act held the finer details, it would have been better if he outlined some of them in his