The internet was started by the military in the late forties, and has since grown to an incredibly large and complex web, which will no doubt effect all of us in the years to come. The press has recently taken it upon themselves to educate the public to the dark side of this web, a network which should be veiwed as a tremendous resource of information and entertainment. Instead, due to this negative image, more and more people are shying away from the internet, afraid of what they may find there.
We must find a way to regulate what is there, rotect ourselves from what is unregulatable, and educate the general populace on how to use this tremendous tool. “The reality exists that governance of global networks offers major challenges to the user, providers, and policy makers to define their boundaries and their system of govenment” (Harassim, p84) The intemet is a group of networks, linked together, which is capable of transmitting vast amounts of information from one network to another. The internet knows no boundaries and is not located in any single country.
The potential the internet has of shaping our world in the future is inconceivable. But with all its potential the internet is surrounded by questions of its usage. The intemet was named the global village by McLuhan and Fiore in 1968, but recently the internet has been more properly renamed the global metropolis. Robert Fortner defines the internet as a place where people from all different cultures and backgrounds come together to share ideas and information. ““Communication in a metropolis also reflects the ethnic, racial, and sexual inequalities that exist generally in the society. ‘ (Fortner, p25) When a person enters into a global metropolis to engage in communication hey do not know who they will interact with nor do they know what information that they may come across. Which brings an important question to mind. If this is a community, a global metropolis, should it not be governed to protect the members of the community? But more importantly, can a community that knows no boundaries and belongs to no country, be regulated? And who can or should regulate it?
With the vast amounts of information transmitted through network to network, with some information remaining at sites temporarily or disappearing within seconds, how can one regulate it? In a meeting of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards in Australia, iiNet, an Australian intemet provider, presented facts on how much information passes through their server daily. “Our own network sees over 200,000 items of email between individuals every day of the year, and this is increasing. In USENet news, the discussion areas’, iiNet sees 150Mb of typed data every day, over 100,000 pages.
This includes people chatting idly, informational postings, questions, answers and anything else that the committee can imagine people wishing to talk about. ” (Senate Committee). This is an example of one server, the information that passes through it originates from all over the world. The point is that this one provider can not possibly be able to review everything that passes through its server. Should the internet be regulated? We know that it can’t and never will be perfectly regulated and therefore the user will always need to be aware that he is entering a global community and he may find some information offensive.
For example, one of the hottest issues which has been in the news is the internet transmitting pornography. Individuals and companies do upload and download pomography. It ranges from pictures of nude men and women to child pornography. Many schools have adopted the idea of bringing computers into the classrooms. “In the classroom, where youngsters are being introduced to the machines as early as kindergarten, they astound-and often outpace-their teachers with their computer skills. ” (Golden, 219) Educating students about computer literacy is an important aspect for the upcoming generation.
Computer literacy will become just as important for people to understand as reading, writing and arithmetic are. With this increased ability at such a young age comes the the abilty to ccess the net, and the places on the net that we as parents don’t want our children going. Much the same as the ability to walk enables them to go places they don’t belong. The United States has laws which regulate pornography with a clear understanding of the First Amendment, allowance for freedom of speech. There is a difference between obscenity which is not protected by the First Amendment and indecency which is!
The way the U. S. determines what is obscenity and what isn’t is by using the Miller three part test to see if something is obscene or not. The test is listed ere: 1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest? 2. Does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law? 3. Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
As one might imagine it is complex enough trying to deem what is obscene and what isn’t using this test. All three must be yes” in order to deem something as obscene. Every state has different pomography laws based on this test because every state has different community standards. Yet we deal with a global metropolis, in which many people with different national standards exsist. “National laws are just that, national in orientation and application. ” (Harissam p. 923) If we are proposing regulating the internet to make it illegal to distribute and receive obscene material we need to find a law that the world could agree on.
If the world accepted Miller’s test of how to determine obscene material, what would be the standard needed in order to answer the first question? These are the questions that are facing the government, providers, and users. Many users are saying regulating the intemet is foolish and futile. A new act introduced in the senate, called the Exon/Gorton Communications Decency Act would give the government authority over what can and cannot be sent over the internet and many users are lobbying voters to write their senators and ask them not to vote for it, invoking the First Amendment. Is anyone regulating the net?
The answer is yes, the providers and some universities are trying to regulate some things. Daniel C. Robbins, the author, rtist, and producer of the bondage, domination, submission, sadism, and masochism web page, was told he would have to shut down his page by an administrator of Brown University because of the content of his page. The web page contained stories of married couples tying each other up to non-consensual rape, torture, and murder as well as pictures and an interactive virtual reality dungeon. (Robbins). America Online (AOL) also has pulled people’s posts because of their content.
The reasoning is that these people have violated their Terms of Service agreement which they make when they sign onto AOL. The terms of sevice agreement for AOL states that members must restrain from using vulgarity and insulting language, and from talking explicitly about sex. Immediately people cry censorship and plead the First Amendment Rights! But in both cases, First Amendment Rights did not apply. AOL is a private provider and has a right to let who they want on the net and are breaking no laws for not allowing members to have complete freedom of speech.
The University as well has the right to say what is received or sent on their server. The government has started to take a stronger position regarding the internet. Officials have investigated a few incidents concerning child pornography, and have begun to investigate more obscene material being sent over the net. Child pornography is defined as pictures or any visual form that show minors, under the age of 18, in a sexual way. The material does not need to be legally obscene in terms of the test stated above to deem it child pornography. All child pornography is illegal and does not enjoy First Amendment rights.
Written marerial about children engaged in sexual acts does not apply to child pornography, because the marerial has to use real minors. Drawings also do not ount as child pornography. It is easier to regulate against child pornography because, in the U. S. , just having possession of it is illegal. Where-as a person can not be prosecuted for having other obscene material in his home, if child pornography is found the person will be prosecuted. If one is to upload child pornography, or obscene material for that matter, they can be charged with transporting obscene material across state lines for distribution, which is a crime.
Officials, especially when it comes to comes to child pornography, are starting to take as strong of a stand as they can. The only reason the government could respond the way it has is because they have been able to prosecute people in the U. S. , mainly for downloading more than uploading child pornography, because it is such a strong law in the U. S. This has made some users concerned about whether they are involved in illegal activity. The authors of Cyberspace and the Law have made a flow chart to demonstrate what should and should not lead a user to legal problems. it points out even more ominous than pornography ; electronic fraud. Computer crime can be enormously profitable. ” (Logsdon, 162) The opportunities for creative fraud are vastly greater than they used to be. “(Baig, Business week, Nov. 14, `94) Computer embezzlement can be very profitable with literally hundreds of thousand of dollars right at their fingertips.
Many computer embezzlers are not caught, if they are, it is usually only by chance. Also those who embezzle and are caught usually “escape prosecution because the institutions they rob prefer to avoid the unfavorable publicity of a public trial. ” (Logsdon,164-5) The temptation is great for many who are computer geniuses. The average ifted in an embezzlement involving computers is $430,000-and it is not uncommon for the total to go considerably higher. “(Logsdon, 163) This leads to the question of trust and privacy. New technologies are being developed to help protect citizens from fraud and give them a sense of privacy , but in the mean time consumers must remember the old adage: “If it sounds too good to be true, it is! ” There are still many flaws that need to be worked out with the new computer revolution.
As someone had written in a usenet group on the Internet: “The ultimate authority of a claim to my identity is me and my credibility. Internet source #1) It is still up to the individual whether or not to believe what has been said and by whom it was said. Can the net be regulated? What is it that we want the internet to be for us and our society? Is it safe to allow our children to play with a system that adults do not fully understand and are not sure how to control? These are not easy questions to answer. As the net grows, goverments will most certainly become more involved, and regulation will most certainly follow. Most importantly we as adults, parents and educators most find ways to teach our hildren how to use this powerful tool constructively.
Granted, that’s not easy in today’s fast paced, two income, latch-key kids society, it is imperative that we find a way. Maybe the answer is to take an hour of television time, and devote it to computer literacy. (Then while we’re at it let’s take another hour and read a book! ) If that’s not possible, there are ways to block out certain sites, much the same as the V-chip used on televisions. These are readily available, many at no cost on the internet. This allows us, as users to regulate what enters our home.