This question has plagued many in years past and will continue to be a source of controversy for years to come. Supporters of Internet censorship believe that this new information medium, currently unregulated and expanding at an alarming rate, must be filtered and controlled to avoid the risk of so-called undesirable content being easily accessible by minors (or, in some cases, anyone). The goal of these individuals and organizations is, essentially, to have laws put in place like those to which the television and radio industry are subjected.
Many others strongly oppose any type of Internet censorship; they, along with other arguments, cite United States citizens constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. The majority of these advocates propose self-regulation for concerned individuals (such as parents). For the majority, the quick expansion of the Internet has come as a surprise; and matters such as this should be taken into careful consideration for the future of the Internet, our children, and, to some extent, our society. At first, the Internet was only used by military personnel for national security purposes.
Then, its horizon broadened to include computer hobbyists and corporations. Now, because of its flexibility and ease of use, it is part of the life of mainstream America. Because of this so-called explosion in the number of households and institutions going online, some have suggested that the Internet be regulated to keep indecent and vulgar content from appearing. Although bills have been proposed to do just what these people wish, as of this point, all of them have been struck down in the United States Congress. Pro Internet Censorship
Bills such as the Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995 (PCCPA) began to appear before the House and Senate when organizations such as Enough is Enough lobbied the Senate for legislation to protect children from online pornography: Women speak with a special authority on the issue of pornographyfor we, and our children are its primary subjectsand its primary victims. Pornography demeans and degrades women, victimizes children and ruins men. It contributes to domestic and spouse abuse, rape, incest and child molestation.
And a great share of it is not protected speech, any more than libel, slander or false advertising is protected speech; therefore, it is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is not legal material. Many Americans do not realize this fact. (Dee Jepsen) Pornography is not the only means of content that many want regulated on the Internet; some contend that hate speech should not be allowed to be openly accessible either. Some oppose hate groups have used the Internet as a medium to spread their message, discovering that it costs much less, and reaches a larger audience than they were able to do beforehand.
Supporters of regulating the Internet believe that it is a powerful tool, which with near total anonymity is easy to abuse. They profess that scamming and harassing other users is not free speech and those people can not hide behind the First Amendment. When the Constitutional Decency Act (CDA) went on trial, the Justice Department argued that the CDA is necessary because “The Internet threatens to give every child a free pass into the equivalent of every adult bookstore and every adult video store in the country” (Mattos).
Supporters of the CDA, such as President Bill Clinton, believe the bill is Constitutional: “I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this Act to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted through computer networks” (Clinton). With regulations to restrict indecent content put in place, children would be able to browse the Internet freely and there would be no need for filtering software or to monitor them. Laws passed to restrict free expression on the Internet would make it safer, easier, and more useful for all involved.
Con Internet Censorship Other activists believe that censoring the Internet is a ridiculous, unconstitutional, and impractical solution to the problems of indecent content. The majority of these opponents propose self-regulation, either through a parent watching his/her child or blocking software that does not let a child access inappropriate material. People against censoring the Internet feel that it would take a persons right to free expression away, which is what some feel is one of the most important assets of the Internet.
These activists have argued that the Constitutional Decency Act, which was brought before the Senate in the summer of 1996, is unjust and certainly not constitutional. By imposing broadcast-style content regulations on the open, decentralized Internet, the CDA severely restricts the First Amendment rights of all Americans and threatens the very existence of the Internet itself. Although they believe that the act is well intentioned, they insist that the CDA can never be effective at controlling content on a global medium, where a web site in Sweden is as close as a site in Connecticut.
The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) case is based on the argument that the only effective and constitutional way to control childrens access to objectionable material on the Internet is to rely on user control. (“CIEC, The Internet Is Not A Television”). The CIEC challenged the CDA on the grounds that “the Internet is a unique communications medium, different from traditional broadcast mass media, which deserves broad First Amendment protections” (CIEC).
The media did not let this issue pass; condemning the CDA, James C. Plummer wrote in Consumers Research Magazine as follows: The CDA penalizes not only people who transmit or make available indecent and/or patently offensive material to minors, but also those who “knowingly permit any telecommunications facility under [his] control to be used for any activity prohibited. ” What does this mean? In effect, it means that your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is legally liable for anything you email, post to a newsgroup, or put on a web page. (Plummer)
Microsoft CEO and computer industry expert Bill Gates in his book on the future of the Internet, The Road Ahead, asserts that the idea of having Internet Service Providers act as censors would be unreasonable: Some critics have suggested that communications companies be made gatekeepers, charged with filtering the content of what they carry. This idea would put companies in the business of censoring all communication. Its entirely unworkable, for one thing because the volume of communicated information is way too large.
This idea is no more feasible or desirable than asking a telephone company to monitor and accept legal responsibility for everything thats spoken or transmitted on its telephone wires. (Gates 310) The CDA, however, was struck down as unconstitutional. In his decision, Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter wrote: It is, of course, correct that statutes that attempt to regulate the content of speech presumptively violate the First AmendmentThat is as it should be. The prohibition against Government’s regulation of speech cannot be set forth any clearer than in the language of the First Amendment.
President Clinton, although steadfastly holding to the belief that censorship laws are necessary for the Internet, condones self-regulation of the Internet through the use of voluntary rating systems: [The Clinton Administration] vigorously supports the development and widespread availability of products that allow both parents and schools to block objectionable materials from reaching computers that children use. And we also support the industry’s accelerating efforts to rate Internet sites so that they are compatible with these blocking techniques.
Agreeing that the proposed CDA is unconstitutional, Judge Stewart Dalzell wrote that: the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. (“ACLU v. Reno”) Some believe that creating a new set of laws for the Internet is unnecessary because federal, state and local laws already apply to users of the Internet if they are in the jurisdiction of said laws.
For example, child pornography is not legal online or off, and several cases have shown that the Internet does not condone libel without penalization. In conclusion, advocates for free speech on the Internet believe that any type of government interference would lead to chaos, and would not work in any way whatsoever, even if taking away the First Amendment in this situation were the correct thing to do. Personal Opinion Before starting this research paper, I believed that the Internet should be free from government regulation.
After comparing the cases of both sides, I still believe, now more strongly, that any interference would have negative results and would not be the least bit effective. The arguments of the supporters of Internet censorship were mostly rooted in moral issues, and as I see it, blatantly show a disregard for the First Amendment. It is obvious that the Internet has not brought about these new issues, but rather raised them to a more global level. Censoring the Internet would not fix any of the problems it is supposed it, but instead it would bring about more problems along with it.
Laws such as the CDA attempt to apply to the entire, global Internet. Even if it were plausible, enforcing United States laws in foreign countries would be absurd because the United States does not have jurisdiction in foreign countries. The government of the United States cannot rightfully, or practically, enforce any law that would affect the entire world. If a law were passed, it would not be able to be enforced and therefore would not work in any way for any amount of time.
As an avid Internet user, publisher, and activist, I believe that the U. S. government should treat U. S. citizen Internet publishers the same as print publishers. Since the First Amendment was ratified in the 18th century, the federal government has recognized the freedom of the press: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The Constitution of the United States of America)
The Internet is unlike any information medium in history. Though there are many similarities between the Internet and other means of communications, the free flow of information that the Internet provides makes it a unique medium. Unlike television and radio, the Internet allows users to access much information beyond just a channel-changing remote with only a limited number of stations. The ability of the Internet to provide access to information is only limited by those who use it.
Unlike traditional print media such as the newspaper, the Internet is relatively cheap and widely accessible. With a computer, network connection, and the proper software, anybody can become a web publisher. There is virtually no limit to how much content can be published on the Internet, whereas newspapers are limited by physical costs such as the cost of paper or the number of writers. The Internet is truly an exceptional, unmatched information medium and should be treated like one.
