Censorship

Everyone has heard of the Internet and how it is going to help set the world free. The Internet is the fastest growing form of communication and is becoming more and more common in the home. Companies these days do big business over the Internet, and online shopping has grown tremendously in the last few years. For instance, the online auction site eBay sells millions of items every year online. Many companies are making even more plans to expand their business to the Internet. Unfortunately, there have been numerous attempts lately to censor the Internet.

If the Internet is controlled, regulated, restricted, or censored it will have harsh effects on its capabilities. In recent years, Americas economy has become increasingly dependent on the need to instantly move large amounts of information across long distances. Computerization has changed everyones life in ways that were never before possible. The global network of interconnected computers allows people to send electronic mail messages across the world in the blink of an eye and stay updated on world events as they happen; the world has become a much smaller place as a result of this global communication and exchange of ideas.

There have also become thousands of online communities of people who share common interests through message boards, chat rooms, and electronic mailing lists (Wilmott 106). Right now, the Internet is the ultimate demonstration of the first amendment: free speech. A place where people can speak their mind without being punished for what they say or how they choose to say it. The Internet owes its incredible worldwide success to its protection of free speech, not only in America, but also in countries where freedom of speech is not guaranteed.

For some, it is the only place where they can speak their mind without fear of political or religious persecution. (Cyberchaos). The Internet is also one of America’s most valuable types of technology; scientists use email for quick and easy communication. They post their current scientific discoveries on online newsgroups so other scientists in the same field of study all over the world can know in minutes. Ordinary people use the Internet for communication, expressing their opinions in the newsgroups, obtaining new information from the WWW, downloading all types of media files, or just surfing for their own personal enjoyment.

Users of the Internet have the freedom to express anything they believe. The fact that the Internet has no single authority figure creates a problem about what kind of materials should be available on the Internet. (Hentoff 12) The largest controversy that surrounds censoring the Internet is what information should be considered offensive. The Internet can be viewed in many different ways. It can be considered a carrier of common data, similar to a phone company, which must ignore what is broadcast for privacy reasons.

Or, it can be considered a distributor and broadcaster of information, much like a television or radio station, which is responsible for what it broadcasts and has to conform to federal standards and regulations. This argument is the main concern of the censorship matter. The Internet is a carrier of information, and not a broadcaster, since it only provides the basic structure for information transfer and sharing. (Cyberchaos) But this angers lawmakers. The current laws existing today do not apply well to the Internet.

The Internet cannot be viewed as one type of transfer medium under current broadcast definitions (Muzzling the Internet). One large difference that sets the Internet apart from a broadcasting media is the fact that one cant stumble across a vulgar or obscene site without first entering an address or following a link from another page. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part, if one wants to find dirty material on the Internet, they have to go out and look for it. The Internet is much more like going into a bookstore and choosing to look at adult magazines than it is like channel surfing on television (Miller 75).

The Internet is a great place of entertainment and education, but like all places used by millions of people, it has some bad influences that people would rather not have their children view. Parents usually try to protect their children, but there are no boundaries to the Internet. For this reason, there have been many attempts at censoring the Internet in the name of protecting children. One example is the Communications Decency Act of 1995.

The Communications Decency Act, also known as the Internet Censorship Act, was introduced in the U. S. Congress in 1995. It would make it a crime to make anything available to a child that is indecent, or to send anything indecent with “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass. The goal of this bill was to try to make all public material on the Internet suitable for young children. The bill would have made certain commercial servers that carry pictures of nudity, like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, be shut down immediately or face prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features nudity, sex talk, or dirty language.

Posting any dirty words in an online discussion group, which occurs often, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine and six months in jail (Levy 78-79). Why does it suddenly become illegal to post something that has been legal for years in print? If it had passed, the bill would also have criminalized private mail. … I can call my brother on the phone and say anything – but if I say it on the Internet, it’s illegal” (Levy 53). Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States.

It is believed by many that the Internet provides greater freedom of speech and press than anything before in our history. “Heavy-handed attempts to impose restrictions on the unruly but incredibly creative anarchy of the Net could kill the spirit of cooperative knowledge-sharing that makes the Net valuable to millions” (Rheingold). The freedom of ideas and expression is what makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be suppressed for any reason. Additionally, only a very small portion of the Internet contains offensive material.

Most people do not use the Internet for pornography. There is no doubt that porn is popular. But the Net is mostly being used for communication and information exchange, and only a tiny portion of the Net contains pornography and other offensive material. While people are concerned about Internet pornography, it is true that it is often perfectly legal; for example, pornography is legal in video and magazines. Therefore, it is contradictory to ban the Internet equivalents (Legal Definition… ). “Citizens should have the right to restrict the information flow into their homes.

They should be able to exclude from their home any subject matter that they do not want their children to see. But sooner or later, their children will be exposed to everything from which they have shielded them… ” (Rheingold). The Internet is definitely not the only means for teenagers to find inappropriate material. If kids want to get a hold of dirty pictures or magazines, there are many other ways to find them besides the Internet. If the purpose of censorship is to prevent minors from being exposed to indecent material, not only the Internet has to be censored.

Censoring the Net will only eliminate one way for children to find this material. Government censorship is not the solution to the problem, and other measures that have the same effects as censorship can be used. For example, there are many software programs that can be purchased or downloaded for free which block out web sites with offensive language or words. Programs such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, and Net Watch can be set up by parents to block access to websites that contain any words, or foul language that may be unsuitable for children.

While these programs have many flaws (a completely appropriate website on breast cancer could be blocked), they are definitely a much smarter and fairer alternative to government censorship (Parental Control Ware). To conclude, the Internet is one of the worlds greatest resources to freedom of speech and expression, and it has the potential to bring education and better communication to every part of the world. All types of people use it, and its free speech and equality has made it incredibly popular.

However, government attempts to censor the Internet in the name of protecting children can only have harmful effects. Censoring the Internet will only contribute to limiting its potential. It also has to be taken into account that indecent or pornographic websites only make up a tiny portion of the Net, and much pornography is legal. The solution to keeping kids from getting into inappropriate websites is to monitor their access, use filtering software, and teach them morals. Censoring the Internet can only be harmful to everyone else who uses it.

The Internet is a wonderful place of entertainment and education, but like all places used by millions of people, it has some murky corners people would prefer children not to explore. In the physical world, society as a whole wants to protect children, but there are no social or physical constraints to Internet surfing. During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to move large amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyone’s life.

The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop. This global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and enables even the common person to access information worldwide. Is the Internet really a Global phenomenon? Since the beginning of time, mankind has been involved in a never-ending quest to learn more about the world in which he lives.

Our natural curiosity leads us to question everything and investigate the way in which the world around us works. Human beings also have a natural tendency to want to explore and see things in the world around them, which they have never seen before. It is in that sense that the Internet is a perfect extension of human nature. It is a medium, which transcends boundaries and makes the world a smaller place much as the media of printing, radio and television did before it. The Internet is the largest most versatile source of information in the world today.

With its web sites and chat rooms, it is a means of communicating with people in places all over the face of the earth. Since its conception in 1973, the Internet has grown at a whirlwind rate. 51 million adults, were on-line as of the second quarter 1997 in the United States alone With advances such as software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is key to the future of the knowledge society. At present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free speech.

It is a place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it. The key to the worldwide success of the Internet is its protection of free speech, not only in America, but also in other countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution. To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists’ cookbooks and countless other things that offend some people.

With over 30 million Internet users in the U. S. one (only 3 million of which surf the net from home), everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating through law making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity. Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable by jail to send “vulgar” language over the net, and to export encryption software. No matter how small, any attempt at government intervention in the Internet will stifle the greatest communication innovation of this century.

The government wants to maintain control over this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of children as a smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the Internet, while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation. Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention. The current body of laws existing today in America does not apply well to the Internet.

Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers cannot be expected to review every title? Is it like a phone company who must ignore what it carries because of privacy? Is it like a broadcasting medium, where the government monitors what is broadcast? The trouble is that the Internet can be all or none of these things depending on how it’s used. The Internet cannot be viewed as one type of transfer medium under current broadcast definitions. The Internet differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar site without first entering a complicated address, or following a link from another source.

The Internet is much more like going into a book store and choosing to look at adult magazines. ” (Miller 75). Jim Exon, a democratic senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency bill regulating the Internet. If the bill passes, certain commercial servers that post pictures of unclad beings, like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, would of course be shut down immediately or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features nudity, sex talk, or rough language.

Posting any dirty words in a Usenet discussion group, which occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine and six months in jail. Even worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some of those nasty words in its pages, The New Yorker for instance, decided to post its contents on-line, its leaders would be held responsible for a $100,000 fine and two years in jail. Why does it suddenly become illegal to post something that has been legal for years in print? Exon’s bill apparently would also “criminalize private mail,” …

I can call my brother on the phone and say anything–but if I say it on the Internet, it’s illegal” (Levy 53). Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U. S. government sources helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer control it. Many of the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come from overseas. There is no clear boundary between information held in the U. S. and information stored in other countries.

Data held in foreign computers is just as accessible as data in America; all it takes is the click of a mouse to access. Even if our government tried to regulate the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in other countries, and we have no practical way to stop it. The Internet’s predecessor was originally designed to uphold communications after a nuclear attack by rerouting data to compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers. Today’s Internet still works on a similar design. The very nature this design allows the Internet to overcome any kind of barriers put in its way.

If a major line between two servers, say in two countries, is cut, then the Internet users will find another way around this obstacle. This obstacle avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an entire nation from indecent information in other countries. If it were physically possible to isolate America’s computers from the rest of the world, it would be devastating to our economy. Recently, a major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960’s protest.

A research associate at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the school’s computer networks. Martin Rimm put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded (a total of 6. 4 million). A local court had recently declared pictures of similar content obscene, and the school feared they might be held responsible for the content of its network. The school administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the newsgroups where most of this obscenity is suspected to come from.

A total of 80 newsgroups were removed, causing a large disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of who felt this was unconstitutional. After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to impose censorship (Elmer-Dewitt 102). Altered views of an electronic world translate easily into altered views of the real world. “When it comes to our children, censorship is a far less important issue than good parenting.

We must teach our kids that the Internet is an extension and a reflection of the real world, and we have to show them how to enjoy the good things and avoid the bad things. This isn’t the government’s responsibility. It’s ours (Miller 76). ” Not all restrictions on electronic speech are bad. Most of the major on-line communication companies have restrictions on what there users can “say. ” They must respect their customer’s privacy, however. Private E-mail content is off limits to them, but they may act swiftly upon anyone who spouts obscenities in a public forum.

Self-regulation by users and servers is the key to avoiding government-imposed intervention. Many on-line sites such as Playboy and Penthouse have started to regulate themselves. Both post clear warnings that adult content lies ahead and lists the countries where this is illegal. The film and videogame industries subject themselves to ratings, and if Internet users want to avoid government imposed regulations, then it is time they begin to regulate themselves. It all boils down to protecting children from adult material, while protecting the first amendment right to free speech between adults.

Government attempts to regulate the Internet are not just limited to obscenity and vulgar language; it also reaches into other areas, such as data encryption. By nature, the Internet is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet may pass through hundreds of computers from its source to destination. At each computer, there is the chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept that data. Credit card numbers are a frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a means of encoding data so that only someone with the proper “key” can decode it.

Why do you need PGP (encryption)? It’s personal. It’s private. And it’s no one’s business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing our taxes, or having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something that you feel shouldn’t be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you don’t want your private electronic mail (E-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else. There’s nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution. Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted.

If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don’t you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? You must be a subversive or a drug dealer if you hide your mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their E-mail? What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail?

If some brave soul tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he’s hiding. Fortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There’s safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their E-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their E-mail privacy with encryption.

Think of it as a form of solidarity (Zimmerman). ” Until the development of the Internet, the U. S. government controlled most new encryption techniques. With the development of faster home computers and a worldwide web, they no longer hold control over encryption. Even the FBI and the NSA have discovered new algorithms that are reportedly uncrackable. This is a major concern to the government because they want to maintain the ability to conduct wiretaps, and other forms of electronic surveillance into the digital age.

To stop the spread of data encryption software, the U. S. government has imposed very strict laws on its exportation. One very well known example of this is the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) scandal. PGP was written by Phil Zimmerman, and is based on “public key” encryption. This system uses complex algorithms to produce two codes, one for encoding and one for decoding. To send an encoded message to someone, a copy of that person’s “public” key is needed. The sender uses this public key to encrypt the data, and the recipient uses their “private” key to decode the message.

As Zimmerman was finishing his program, he heard about a proposed Senate bill to ban cryptography. This prompted him to release his program for free, hoping that it would become so popular that its use could not be stopped. One of the original users of PGP posted it to an Internet site, where anyone from any country could download it, causing a federal investigator to begin investigating Phil for violation of this new law. As with any new technology, this program has allegedly been used for illegal purposes, and the FBI and NSA are believed to be unable to crack this code.

When told about the illegal uses of him programs, Zimmerman replies: “If I had invented an automobile, and was told that criminals used it to rob banks, I would feel bad, too. But most people agree the benefits to society that come from automobiles — taking the kids to school, grocery shopping and such — outweigh their drawbacks. ” (Levy 56). Currently, PGP can be downloaded from MIT. They have a very complicated system that changes the location on the software to be sure that they are protected. All that needs to be done is click “YES” to four questions dealing with exportation and use of the program, and it is there for the taking.

This seems to be a lot of trouble to protect a program from spreading that is already world wide. The government wants to protect their ability to legally wiretap, but what good does it do them to stop encryption in foreign countries? They cannot legally wiretap someone in another country, and they sure cannot ban encryption in the U. S. The government has not been totally blind to the need for encryption. For nearly two decades, a government sponsored algorithm, Data Encryption Standard (DES), has been used primarily by banks.

The government always maintained the ability to decipher this code with their powerful supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption have been devised that the government can’t decipher, they are proposing a new standard to replace DES. This new standard is called Clipper, and is based on the “public key” algorithms. Instead of software, Clipper is a microchip that can be incorporated into just about anything (Television, Telephones, etc. ). This algorithm uses a much longer key that is 16 million times more powerful than DES.

It is estimated that today’s fastest computers would take 400 billion years to break this code using every possible key. (Lehrer 378). “The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip will be loaded with its own unique key, and the Government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though the Government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only when duly authorized by law. Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography (Zimmerman).

If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Intelligence agencies have access to good cryptographic technology. So do the big arms and drug traffickers. So do defense contractors, oil companies, and other corporate giants. But ordinary people and grassroots political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable “military grade” public-key cryptographic technology. Until now. PGP empowers people to take their privacy into their own hands. There’s a growing social need for it. That’s why I wrote it (Zimmerman).

The most important benefits of encryption have been conveniently overlooked by the government. If everyone used encryption, there would be absolutely no way that an innocent bystander could happen upon something they choose not to see. Only the intended receiver of the data could decrypt it (using public key cryptography, not even the sender can decrypt it) and view its contents. Each coded message also has an encrypted signature verifying the sender’s identity. The sender’s secret key can be used to encrypt an enclosed signature message, thereby “signing” it.

This creates a digital signature of a message, which the recipient (or anyone else) can check by using the sender’s public key to decrypt it. This proves that the sender was the true originator of the message, and that the message has not been subsequently altered by anyone else, because the sender alone possesses the secret key that made that signature. “Forgery of a signed message is infeasible, and the sender cannot later disavow his signature(Zimmerman). ” Gone would be the hate mail that causes many problems, and gone would be the ability to forge a document with someone else’s address.

The government, if it did not have alterior motives, should mandate encryption, not outlaw it. As the Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more governments may try to impose their views onto the rest of the world through regulations and censorship. It will be a sad day when the world must adjust its views to conform to that of the most prudish regulatory government. If too many regulations are inacted, then the Internet as a tool will become nearly useless, and the Internet as a mass communication device and a place for freedom of mind and thoughts, will become non-existent.

The users, servers, and parents of the world must regulate themselves, so as not to force government regulations that may stifle the best communication instrument in history. If encryption catches on and becomes as widespread as Zimmerman predicts it will, then there will no longer be a need for the government to meddle in the Internet, and the biggest problem will work itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the censorship and encryption issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature.

During the last decade, our society has become based on the sole ability to move large amounts of information across great distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyone’s life in numerous ways. The natural evolution of computer technology and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop.

This global network allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and allows a common person to access wealths of information worldwide. This newfound global network, originally called Arconet, was developed and funded solely by and for the U. S. vernment. It was to be used in the event of a nuclear attack in order to keep communications lines open across the country by rerouting information through different servers across the country.

Does this mean that the government owns the Internet, or is it no longer a tool limited by the powers that govern. Generalities such as t! hese have sparked great debates within our nation’s government. This paper will attempt to focus on two high profile ethical aspects concerning the Internet and its usage. These subjects are Internet privacy and Internet censorship. At the moment, the Internet is epitome of our first amendment, free speech.

It is a place where a person can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say or how they choose to say it. But also contained on the Internet, are a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists’ cookbooks, and countless other things that offend many people. There are over 30 million Internet surfers in the U. S. alone, and much is to be said about what offends whom and how. As with many new technologies, today’s laws don’t apply well when it comes to the Internet. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers can not be expected to review every title?

Is it like a phone company who must ignore hat it carries because of privacy; or is it like a broadcast medium, where the government monitors what is broadcast? The problem we are facing today is that the Internet can be all or none of the above depending on how it is used. Internet censorship, what does it mean? Is it possible to censor amounts of information that are all alone unimaginable? The Internet was originally designed to “find a way around” in case of broken communications lines, and it seems that explicit material keeps finding its “way around” too.

I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in Internet censorship. However, the question at hand is just how much censorship the government impose. Because the internet has become the largest source of information in the world, legislative safeguards are indeed imminent. Explicit material is not readily available over the mail or telephone and distribution of obscene material is illegal. Therefore, there is no reason this stuff should go unimpeded across the Internet. Sure, there are some blocking devices, but they are no substitute for well-reasoned law.

To counter this, the United States has set regulations to determine what is categori! zed as obscenity and what is not. By laws set previously by the government, obscene material should not be accessible through the Internet. The problem society is now facing is that cyberspace is like a neighborhood without a police department. “Outlaws” are now able to use powerful cryptography to send and receive uncrackable communications across the Internet. Devices set up to filter certain communications cannot filter that which cannot be read, which leads to my other topic of interest: data encryption.

By nature, the Internet is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet may pass through hundreds f computers between its source and destination. At each computer, there is a chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept the data, private or not. Credit card numbers are a frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a means of encoding data so that only someone with the proper “key” can decode it. So far, recent attempts by the government to control data encryption have failed. They are concerned that encryption will block their monitoring capabilities, but there is nothing wrong with asserting our privacy.

Privacy is an inalienable right given to us by our onstitution. For example, your E-mail may be legitimate enough that encryption is unnecessary. If you we do indeed have nothing to hide, then why don’t we send our paper mail on postcards? Are we trying to hide something? In comparison, is it wrong to encrypt E-mail? Before the advent of the Internet, the U. S. government controlled most new encryption techniques. But with the development of the WWW and faster home computers, they no longer have the control they once had. New algorithms have been discovered that are reportedly uncrackable even by the FBI and NSA.

The government is oncerned that they will be unable to maintain the ability to conduct electronic surveillance into the digital age. To stop the spread of data encryption software, they have imposed very strict laws on its exportation. One programmer, Phil Zimmerman, wrote an encryption program he called PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). When he heard of the government’s intent to ban distribution encryption software, he immediately released the program to be public for free. PGP’s software is among the most powerful public encryption tool available. The government has not been totally blind by the need for encryption.

The banks have sponsored an algorithm called DES, that has been used by banks for decades. While to some, its usage by banks may seem more ethical, but what makes it unethical for everyone else to use encryption too? The government is now developing a new encryption method that relies on a microchip that may be placed inside just about any type of electronic equipment. It is called the Clipper chip and is 16 million times more powerful than DES and today’s fastest computers would take approximately 400 billion years to decipher it. At the time of manufacture, the chips are loaded with their own nique key, and the government gets a copy.

But don’t worry the government promises that they will use these keys only to read traffic when duly authorized by law. But before this new chip can be used effectively, the government must get rid of all other forms of cryptography. The relevance of my two topics of choice seems to have been conveniently overlooked by our government. Internet privacy through data encryption and Internet censorship are linked in one important way. If everyone used encryption, there would be no way that an innocent bystander could stumble upon something they weren’t meant to ee.

Only the intended receiver of an encrypted message can decode it and view its contents; the sender isn’t even able to view such contents. Each coded message also has an encrypted signature verifying the sender’s identity. Gone would be the hate mail that causes many problems, as well as the ability to forge a document with someone else’s address. If the government didn’t have ulterior motives, they would mandate encryption, not outlaw it. As the Internet grows throughout the world, more governments may try to impose their views onto the rest of the orld through regulations and censorship.

If too many regulations are enacted, then the Internet as a tool will become nearly useless, and our mass communication device, a place of freedom for our mind’s thoughts will fade away. We must regulate ourselves as not to force the government to regulate us. If encryption is allowed to catch on, there will no longer be a need for the government to intervene on the Internet, and the biggest problem may work itself out. As a whole, we all need to rethink our approach to censorship and encryption and allow the Internet to continue to grow and mature.

“Inevitably, being an uncontrolled system, means that the Internet will be subjected to subversive applications of some unscrupulous users. ” (Kershaw) The concept of the Internet was created in answer to a strategic problem faced by the United States government during the Cold war era. A nuclear attack would easily disrupt a traditional computer network and hence make communication impossible. The solution was found in a new type of network. A network where all nodes would be equal in status, that is to say each could send and receive messages.

The resulting projects were the first steps towards the birth of the Internet, as we know it. Today, the Internet consists of several parts, which include the World Wide Web, News groups, and Email. The Internet is continuing to grow at a rate of 40% a year, with roughly 20 million users to date. Over the past few years, the issue of Internet censorship has been subject to an unprecedented amount of controversy. Both sides of the debate present very strong arguments about why the Internet should or should not be censored.

The point most often brought forward by advocates of Internet censorship is that “inappropriate” material can all too easily land in the hands of children via this powerful new medium. “Inappropriate” mostly describes the sexually explicit and racist material that is easily found on the Internet. The debate that currently rages however center mainly on pornographic material. The essay is divided into three content-based sections. The first section examines the data that is available about pornography on the Internet. Conclusions on significance of the data are offered.

Section two examines the legal issues and difficulties surrounding the idea of censorship. The final section discusses alternative ways of protecting children from pornography and offers a final conclusion on the attributes of the problem and the suggestion of a solution. Censorship of Internet is a big issue and not much of it can be covered in an essay at this level. In early 1995, a research team at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania released one of the most revealing studies into online pornography.

The value of study, titled “Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway” is realised mainly due to its massive sample size. There are several issues about pornography on the Internet that were highlighted by the study. The research team surveyed 917,410 “sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, short stories and film clips”. Of special interest were Usenet newsgroups, which are basically electronic forums. It was found that 83. 5 percent of the digitised images stored on these newsgroups were pornographic pictures.

This finding indicates that there clearly is a substantial amount of pornography on the net. This however does not necessarily indicate that this material is easy to find. To come to a conclusion, this student conducted several experiments using the on-line “Altavista” search engine. The key searchword “sex” was entered. 616,156 links were returned. Out of the first 20 entries listed on the first page only 2 links were to pornographic sites. The search keyword “tits” however, returned 69,920 links. Out of the first 20 links listed on the first page 17 were to pornographic websites or bulletin boards.

Amidst all these links was one that led to a French children’s pen-pal club called “Les P’tits Garnements. After reviewing the posted messages and photographs on one of the bulletin boards that showed up as a link, it was apparent that the purpose of the site was purely for exchange of child pornography. It is most likely that a minor would come across explicit areas of the Internet through search engines. Children are very likely to search using traditionally rude four-letter words more as a source of childish amusement than anything else.

There can be no argument that the resulting links do not justify the level of parental anxiety that we are witnessing today. Explicit sexual material on the Internet is not the result of an unfounded moral panic. Anyone that takes the time to conduct a few experiments as detailed above will realize that this is a most serious issue. The survey also determined that 71 percent of the sexual images on the newsgroups surveyed originate from adult-oriented computer bulletin-board systems (BBS) whose operators are trying to lure customers to their private collections of X-rated material.

There are thousands of these BBS services, which charge fees (typically $10 to $30 a month) and take credit cards; the five largest have annual revenues in excess of $1 million. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, explicit material is not being circulated by “perverted socially reclusive computer nerds”. This is a commercial activity. As long as people are willing to pay for it, it will be supplied. This is not a new problem that society faces. Prostitution and drug trading are other older facets of this same concept. The Internet has simply brought a new face of the same issue.

Perhaps the most disturbing discovery of the Carnegie Mellon study is one that relates to the changing face of pornography. It is no longer “just naked women”. There is great demand and inevitably great supply of “pedophilia” (nude photos of children), “hebephilia” (youths) and what the researchers call “paraphilia” (“a mixture of deviant material that includes images of bondage, sadomasochism, urination, defecation, and sex acts with a barnyard full of animals”). Anti-censorship activists often argue that censoring the net “makes no difference” because “obscene” material is available from any old corner shop.

These newer “types” of pornography may actually render this argument obsolete. Children are certainly exposed to material that even the most adventurous of them would not have normally come across. Most societies like to think of themselves as at least doing something to limit the development of “problems” such as pornography on the Internet. Governments of the United Kingdom and United States have both taken legislative steps towards this effect. It has not been easy in either case and the outcomes have arguably been altogether unsatisfactory.

United Kingdom legislation includes several statutes that are of particular interest. Section 1(1) of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act provides the following test for obscenity: “For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

This definition of “obscene” stems from the opinion of Lord Cockburn concerning the case Regina v. Hicklin (1868), enunciated the first important guide in determining what material was obscene. It is open to serious criticism. The fundamental problem with this definition is that it can condemn material that may legitimately dealt with sex. Section 43 of the Telecommunications 1984 Act makes it an offence to send by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’ and is an imprisonable offence with a maximum term of six months.

When carefully scrutinised it is clear that the Act itself does not penalise the act of procuring a message to be sent. As usual, there are loopholes abound. When a telecommunication system located outside the jurisdiction is used to send obscene materials into the country, no offence has been committed. The 1984 Act will also not apply to cases where the data is transmitted by using a local area network unless part of the transmission is routed through a public telecommunications system.

Even though UK legislation has recently been amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994′), in order to keep up with technological changes, there are still wrinkles in its enforcement with respect to the Internet. United State legislation has gone through many different tests of “obscenity” for reasons too many and varied to be discussed here. The current definition of obscenity is based on several conditions as opposed to a single one. On June 14, 1995, the Senate debated and voted on Title IV of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 (S. 652).

Also known as the Communications Decency Act of 1995, it proposed to amend Section 223 (47 U. S. C. 223) to read: “Whoever, by means of telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person,” will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both. ” There are two immediately obvious reasons why the CDA was doomed to fail.

Firstly, it may have severely restricted the flow of information and free speech. In its online analysis the “Electronic Frontier Foundation” (EFF), stated: “[T]he legislation not only fails to solve the problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content restrictions on computer communications that would chill First Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in the public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only such content as is suitable for children. ” A second problem was the uncompromising nature of the bill.

A particular example would perhaps best illustrate this point. An online appeal from an organisation called Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) stated the following: “This proposed law could mean the demise of the Seattle Community Network (SCN), a 6,500-member free, public access computer network established to benefit the public. Under the proposed legislation, if an individual member of the SCN posted a message on an SCN forum or from SCN that was later deemed to be “indecent,” SCN could be fined $100,000, and SCN’s board of Directors and staff could face two-year prison sentences.

Yet without community networks like SCN, the Internet would be out of reach to millions of citizens. ” It is easy to admire the ideals that the CDA stands for. The Senate approved the Act with a vote of 84-16. The approach of the legislation however, is much too naive. In June of 1997 the CDA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it “violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression”. The general problem with legislation with respect to the Internet is the fact that regulation laws have for so long been focused on traditional media channels such as radio and television.

The Internet is new and extreme form of media. It is thus incompatible with existing laws. New and equally extreme laws would be necessary to regulate the Internet. However, as experience with the CDA has shown, extreme laws are not very popular and are likely to be contested and overthrown. Section 3 Even the most zealous censorship advocate would be blind not to realise that a world-wide censorship programme would be futile. National laws and community standards vary from nation to nation and even between regions of the same country.

It would be virtually impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to a single censorship act. Thus, the Internet, in its entirety, can never truly be censored. Even if the politics of it could be appeased, there are too many sources of pornography. Even the most ambitious regulatory agency could not hope to control them all. So the question of how to keep pornography away from children still remains. Following the 1996 period of extensive controversy over pornography on the Internet, many sexually explicit websites introduced password protection schemes.

Before being allowed access to the site a password is required. To obtain a password a user must subscribe to company such as “Adultcheck”. Online credit card payment is required before passwords are dispensed, the idea being that minors will not have access to credit cards. It seems like an attractive solution. Legislation could be used to compel the pornography industry to self-regulate itself in order to safeguard their substantial profits. There are two reasons however, why this would be an incomplete solution.

Firstly, many websites would be out of the jurisdiction of the legislation and thus free to operate without password schemes. There would probably even be a significant number of renegade sites that would ignore legislation and get away with it. Secondly, many people simply give away their passwords on bulletin boards, which defeats the whole purpose of the scheme. The solution that parents and educators are currently turning to most is the censor software approach. Censor or filtering software works by denying access to “objectionable” websites on the Internet. There are two main reasons why this approach is at most inadequate.

The first drawback relates to technological imperfections and was well highlighted in a study titled “Faulty filters”, released by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in November 1997. The study involved the conducting of up to 100 searches using a normal search engine and then the conducting of the same searches via one of the new search engine that claim to return only “family-friendly” links. It was found that the search engine “typically blocked access to 95-99 percent of the material available on the Internet that might be of interest to young people”.

The study also noted that even when strict “blocking criteria were used links to “objectionable” material still showed up. The conclusion of the study seriously questioned the filtering software approach to Internet censorship on the basis of its potential to “ultimately diminish the educational value of the Internet”. The study is not optimistic about any improved performance of filtering software with the passage of time. The second drawback is concerned with a much more sinister aspect of censor software. In the February 1998 edition of “. net. ” magazine; an article about filtering software presented some disturbing facts.

The article revealed that that Solid Oaks’ CYBERsitter, a popular filtering program, actually blocked sites of groups such as “The National Organisation for Women” and “The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation”. An even more worrying revelation was that among the list of words and phrases that were to be blocked by the program were the phrases “dontbuycybercitter” and “bennethasleton” the name of an 18 year old anti-censorship activist. This implies that there are serious political and commercial agendas behind the facade of “censorship”. This may perhaps be the general problem with censorship.

It tries to promote a particular rigid set of morals and values on everybody concerned and at times is abused in order to advance other hidden agendas. Whatever the solution to the problem of pornography on the Internet it is unlikely to have anything to do with technically unsophisticated software that considers “gay rights” to be an objectionable topic. In August 1995, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a twenty-two company consortium gathered under the held a conference discuss the need to create self-imposed ratings systems which would allow parents to control what children are allowed to see on the Internet.

The result of the group’s work, to date, is the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS is similar to the V-chip technology that was suggested for shielding children from sex and violence on television. In this case websites voluntarily “label” their content. What this technology may mean for parents is the ability to specify viewing levels for their children according to what they feel their children should be exposed to. Intuition suggests that a complete censorship program would be practically impossible.

There are too many obstacles including the inability of current legislation to deal with the unique nature of the Internet without resorting to extreme and unpopular measures. The Internet, to be utilised to its full value, simply must remain as it is. Protection of minors from “obscene” material must be a sort of add-on. Filtering software is an attractive concept, but as discussed above, has enough shortcomings to make it a questionable approach. The only hope lies in the advancement of technology.

The MIT consortium and their work with PICS illustrates the kind of solution that would be most ideal. PICS is simply a technical standard that will supposedly allow concerned parents and educators to tighten their control over what children can see on the Internet. Unlike filtering software, it does not impose any scheme of values on its user population or advance any hidden agendas. Hopefully, with the advancement of fifth generation computers and artificial intelligence schemes such as this will eventually approach minimal defect.

The question that will then remain will be a much more of a human one. Technology can never really replace parental guidance. Children absorb sexually explicit material because of their basic curiosity, which stems from inexperience in the ways of the world. Parents and educators must recognise their duty to nurture the growth of children and encourage broad-minded yet ethically aware mental development. Only then will society be facing up to its basic problems as opposed to merely trying to diminish their effects.

The concept of the Internet was created in answer to a strategic problem faced by the United States government during the Cold war era. A nuclear attack would easily disrupt a traditional computer network and hence make communication impossible. The solution was found in a new type of network. A network where all nodes would be equal in status, that is to say each could send and receive messages. The resulting projects were the first steps towards the birth of the Internet, as we know it. Today, the Internet consists of several parts, which include the World Wide Web, FTP, IRC, News groups, Gopher, WAIS, Archie, and Email.

The Internet is continuing to grow at a rate of 40% a year, with roughly 20 million users to date. Over the past few years, the issue of Internet censorship has been subject to an unprecedented amount of controversy. Both sides of the debate present very strong arguments about why the Internet should or should not be censored. The point most often brought forward by advocates of Internet censorship is that “inappropriate” material can all too easily land in the hands of children via this powerful new medium. “Inappropriate” mostly describes the sexually explicit and racist material that is easily found on the Internet.

The debate that currently rages however centres mainly on pornographic material. The essay is divided into three content-based sections. The first section examines the data that is available about pornography on the Internet. Conclusions on significance of the data are offered. Section two examines the legal issues and difficulties surrounding the idea of censorship. The final section discusses alternative ways of protecting children from pornography and offers a final conclusion on the attributes of the problem and the suggestion of a solution.

Censorship of Internet is a big issue and not much of it can be covered in an essay at this level. The essay deliberately focuses only on pornography. While many aspects had to be left out and others discussed minimally, the result of this essay remains a brief synopsis of relevant issues and conclusions on these issues. Section 1 In early 1995, a research team at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania released one of the most revealing studies into online pornography. The value of study, titled “Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway” is realised mainly due to its massive sample size.

There are several issues about pornography on the Internet that were highlighted by the study. The research team surveyed 917,410 “sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, short stories and film clips”. Of special interest were Usenet newsgroups, which are basically electronic forums. It was found that 83. 5 percent of the digitised images stored on these newsgroups were pornographic pictures. This finding indicates that there clearly is a substantial amount of pornography on the net. This however does not necessarily indicate that this material is easy to find.

To come to a conclusion, this student conducted several experiments using the on-line “Altavista” search engine. The key searchword “sex” was entered. 616,156 links were returned. Out of the first 20 entries listed on the first page only 2 links were to pornographic sites. The search keyword “tits” however, returned 69,920 links. Out of the first 20 links listed on the first page 17 were to pornographic websites or bulletin boards. Amidst all these links was one that led to a French children’s pen-pal club called “Les P’tits Garnements.

After reviewing the posted messages and photographs on one of the bulletin boards that showed up as a link, it was apparent that the purpose of the site was purely for exchange of child pornography. It is most likely that a minor would come across explicit areas of the Internet through search engines. Children are very likely to search using traditionally rude four-letter words more as a source of childish amusement than anything else. There can be no argument that the resulting links do not justify the level of parental anxiety that we are witnessing today.

Explicit sexual material on the Internet is not the result of an unfounded moral panic. Anyone that takes the time to conduct a few experiments as detailed above will realise that this is a most serious issue. The survey also determined that 71 percent of the sexual images on the newsgroups surveyed originate from adult-oriented computer bulletin-board systems (BBS) whose operators are trying to lure customers to their private collections of X-rated material. There are thousands of these BBS services, which charge fees (typically $10 to $30 a month) and take credit cards; the five largest have annual revenues in excess of $1 million.

This finding is a valuable one. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, explicit material is not being circulated by “perverted socially reclusive computer nerds”. This is a commercial activity. As long as people are willing to pay for it, it will be supplied. This is not a new problem that society faces. Prostitution and drug trading are other older facets of this same concept. The Internet has simply brought a new face of the same issue. Perhaps the most disturbing discovery of the Carnegie Mellon study is one that relates to the changing face of pornography.

It is no longer “just naked women”. There is great demand and inevitably great supply of “pedophilia” (nude photos of children), “hebephilia” (youths) and what the researchers call “paraphilia” (“a grab bag of deviant material that includes images of bondage, sadomasochism, urination, defecation, and sex acts with a barnyard full of animals”). Anti-censorship activists often argue that censoring the net “makes no difference” because “obscene” material is available from any old corner shop. These newer “types” of pornography may actually render this argument obsolete.

Children are certainly exposed to material that even the most adventurous of them would not have normally come across. Section 2 Most societies like to think of themselves as at least doing something to limit the development of “problems” such as pornography on the Internet. Governments of the United Kingdom and United States have both taken legislative steps towards this effect. It has not been easy in either case and the outcomes have arguably been altogether unsatisfactory. United Kingdom legislation includes several statutes that are of particular interest.

Section 1(1) of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act provides the following test for obscenity: “For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. ”

This definition of “obscene” stems from the opinion of Lord Cockburn concerning the case Regina v. Hicklin (1868), enunciated the first important guide in determining what material was obscene. It is open to serious criticism. The fundamental problem with this definition is that it can condemn material that may legitimately dealt with sex. Section 43 of the Telecommunications 1984 Act makes it an offence to send by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’ and is an imprisonable offence with a maximum term of six months.

When carefully scrutinised it is clear that the Act itself does not penalise the act of procuring a message to be sent. As usual, there are loopholes abound. When a telecommunication system located outside the jurisdiction is used to send obscene materials into the country, no offence has been committed. The 1984 Act will also not apply to cases where the data is transmitted by using a local area network unless part of the transmission is routed through a public telecommunications system.

Even though UK legislation has recently been amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994′), in order to keep up with technological changes, there are still wrinkles in its enforcement with respect to the Internet. United State legislation has gone through many different tests of “obscenity” for reasons too many and varied to be discussed here. The current definition of obscenity is based on several conditions as opposed to a single one. On June 14, 1995, the Senate debated and voted on Title IV of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 (S. 652).

Also known as the Communications Decency Act of 1995, it proposed to amend Section 223 (47 U. S. C. 223) to read: “Whoever, by means of telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person,” will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both. ” There are two immediately obvious reasons why the CDA was doomed to fail.

Firstly, it may have severely restricted the flow of information and free speech. In its online analysis the “Electronic Frontier Foundation” (EFF), stated: “[T]he legislation not only fails to solve the problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content restrictions on computer communications that would chill First Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in the public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only such content as is suitable for children. ” A second problem was the uncompromising nature of the bill.

A particular example would perhaps best illustrate this point. An online appeal from an organisation called Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) stated the following: “This proposed law could mean the demise of the Seattle Community Network (SCN), a 6,500-member free, public access computer network established to benefit the public. Under the proposed legislation, if an individual member of the SCN posted a message on an SCN forum or from SCN that was later deemed to be “indecent,” SCN could be fined $100,000, and SCN’s board of Directors and staff could face two-year prison sentences.

Yet without community networks like SCN, the Internet would be out of reach to millions of citizens. ” It is easy to admire the ideals that the CDA stands for. The Senate approved the Act with a vote of 84-16. The approach of the legislation however, is much too naive. In June of 1997 the CDA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it “violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression”. The general problem with legislation with respect to the Internet is the fact that regulation laws have for so long been focused on traditional media channels such as radio and television.

The Internet is new and extreme form of media. It is thus incompatible with existing laws. New and equally extreme laws would be necessary to regulate the Internet. However, as experience with the CDA has shown, extreme laws are not very popular and are likely to be contested and overthrown. Section 3 Even the most zealous censorship advocate would be blind not to realise that a world-wide censorship programme would be futile. National laws and community standards vary from nation to nation and even between regions of the same country.

It would be virtually impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to a single censorship act. Thus, the Internet, in its entirety, can never truly be censored. Even if the politics of it could be appeased, there are too many sources of pornography. Even the most ambitious regulatory agency could not hope to control them all. So the question of how to keep pornography away from children still remains. Following the 1996 period of extensive controversy over pornography on the Internet, many sexually explicit websites introduced password protection schemes.

Before being allowed access to the site a password is required. To obtain a password a user must subscribe to company such as “Adultcheck”. Online credit card payment is required before passwords are dispensed, the idea being that minors will not have access to credit cards. It seems like an attractive solution. Legislation could be used to compel the pornography industry to self-regulate itself in order to safeguard their substantial profits. There are two reasons however, why this would be an incomplete solution.

Firstly, many websites would be out of the jurisdiction of the legislation and thus free to operate without password schemes. There would probably even be a significant number of renegade sites that would ignore legislation and get away with it. Secondly, many people simply give away their passwords on bulletin boards, which defeats the whole purpose of the scheme. The solution that parents and educators are currently turning to most is the censor software approach. Censor or filtering software works by denying access to “objectionable” websites on the Internet. There are two main reasons why this approach is at most inadequate.

The first drawback relates to technological imperfections and was well highlighted in a study titled “Faulty filters”, released by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in November 1997. The study involved the conducting of up to 100 searches using a normal search engine and then the conducting of the same searches via one of the new search engine that claim to return only “family-friendly” links. It was found that the search engine “typically blocked access to 95-99 percent of the material available on the Internet that might be of interest to young people”.

The study also noted that even when strict “blocking criteria were used links to “objectionable” material still showed up. The conclusion of the study seriously questioned the filtering software approach to Internet censorship on the basis of its potential to “ultimately diminish the educational value of the Internet”. The study is not optimistic about any improved performance of filtering software with the passage of time. The second drawback is concerned with a much more sinister aspect of censor software. In the February 1998 edition of “. net. ” magazine; an article about filtering software presented some disturbing facts.

The article revealed that that Solid Oaks’ CYBERsitter, a popular filtering program, actually blocked sites of groups such as “The National Organisation for Women” and “The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation”. An even more worrying revelation was that among the list of words and phrases that were to be blocked by the program were the phrases “dontbuycybercitter” and “bennethasleton” the name of an 18 year old anti-censorship activist. This implies that there are serious political and commercial agendas behind the facade of “censorship”. This may perhaps be the general problem with censorship.

It tries to promote a particular rigid set of morals and values on everybody concerned and at times is abused in order to advance other hidden agendas. Whatever the solution to the problem of pornography on the Internet it is unlikely to have anything to do with technically unsophisticated software that considers “gay rights” to be an objectionable topic. In August 1995, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a twenty-two company consortium gathered under the held a conference discuss the need to create self-imposed ratings systems which would allow parents to control what children are allowed to see on the Internet.

The result of the group’s work, to date, is the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS is similar to the V-chip technology that was suggested for shielding children from sex and violence on television. In this case websites voluntarily “label” their content. What this technology may mean for parents is the ability to specify viewing levels for their children according to what they feel their children should be exposed to. Intuition suggests that a complete censorship program would be practically impossible.

There are too many obstacles including the inability of current legislation to deal with the unique nature of the Internet without resorting to extreme and unpopular measures. The Internet, to be utilised to its full value, simply must remain as it is. Protection of minors from “obscene” material must be a sort of add-on. Filtering software is an attractive concept, but as discussed above, has enough shortcomings to make it a questionable approach. The only hope lies in the advancement of technology.

The MIT consortium and their work with PICS illustrates the kind of solution that would be most ideal. PICS is simply a technical standard that will supposedly allow concerned parents and educators to tighten their control over what children can see on the Internet. Unlike filtering software, it does not impose any scheme of values on its user population or advance any hidden agendas. Hopefully, with the advancement of fifth generation computers and artificial intelligence schemes such as this will eventually approach minimal defect.

The question that will then remain will be a much more of a human one. Technology can never really replace parental guidance. Children absorb sexually explicit material because of their basic curiosity, which stems from inexperience in the ways of the world. Parents and educators must recognise their duty to nurture the growth of children and encourage broad-minded yet ethically aware mental development. Only then will society be facing up to its basic problems as opposed to merely trying to diminish their effects.

Presently, it seems that the Internet is playing a very important role in everyone’s daily life. This multipurpose network has many different functions useful for everyday work and entertainment. Due to the freedom of the Internet various debates and protests have come to disagree with its open form of communication.

Because of the misuse of the internet many people believe that there should be some kind of internet censorship, while others are against internet censorship stating that “it is both unnecessary impossible to implement and that because of its nature the internet should be afforded the same freedom and protection as the print media” (Bradsher 2). People that are in favor of internet censorship believe that the internet in unregulated and that unlike any other form of communication available today is open to abuse and misuse in many different ways.

Anyone can use the Internet to send almost any type of data to anyone. This leaves it open to abuse in ways unheard before because data can be transmitted anonymously and secretly. While these people fight for Internet censorship others argue against it. The basic argument made by people who oppose Internet censorship is that it should be granted the same rights as any other means of communication. These people state that the Internet “allows for the first time for everyone in a group to have the same opportunities of engaging in and partaking of debates” (Bradsher 2).

It doesn’t discriminate against anyone because of sex, religion or race and its open for with disabilities who are very often excluded from other media outlets to access and contribute equally. The magazine Society states that “the Internet has been shown to be used by pedophile rings across the world to trade in pictures and to encourage their depraved and sick habits” (37). This makes it impossible to stop juveniles using it to access pornography because there is no way of knowing someone’s age.

People can use the Internet to impose themselves on others; anonymous email can be sent by people; people can log onto chat servers and interrupt by saying things, which offend or upset those already communicating. “People who have had no access to pornography and other depravities are using the Internet to get at something that they would otherwise never be able to see” (Society 38). While there are people favoring Internet censorship there are others that are against it. Bradsher sates that “to censor the Internet would fundamentally harm it and destroy the equality, which makes it most popular – its freedom” (3).

People like and use the Internet because they feel they can come onto it, talk and email hundreds of others across the world. Debaters against Internet censorship believe that there are simply too many users of the Internet to be able to ensure that one doesn’t offend anyone. Many of the most important newspapers and news organizations are moving to the Internet. “If censorship is introduced our national media will be severely curtailed in a way which would never be acceptable if it were to be done to the print media” (Bradsher 3).

Those against Internet censorship state that “making commercial providers responsible for the activities or their customers is fundamentally unfair” (Society 38). If a costumer is allowed use the Internet then unless you watch and monitor every word or data they send then it is very easy for them to do something unwanted. To try and carry out this from of control would make the entire Internet unworkable. While those in favor of Internet censorship sate that “all other forms of communication TV Radio Satellite are regulated and strictly controlled.

Why should the Internet not be” (Society 38). The rights of the child to protection from pedophilia and pornography outweigh the rights of users who wish full freedom. The web is unlike any other form of publishing today. It allows people to publish quickly and quietly. People can set up pages that are unavailable unless one knows the address. This allows for the publishing of child porn and other dangerous material such as instructions for bomb making available without even the owner of the computer knowing about it.

People believe it must be strictly controlled; they can set up links to bring people to web pages they don’t want to see and can subject them to images and text about the basest forms of immorality. Children can use the web to find pictures, videos, and texts about subjects that are not suitable. Bradsher sates that “the web should be afforded the same protections as currently apply to the printed word” (4). To ban certain newsgroups and web sites would force the pornography “underground” (Bradsher 4). People would still post their files but would have to do so under cover.

This would mean those not wanting that material could have it forced upon them. “Individual users and parents, not the government, should decide what material is appropriate for their children” (Bradsher 4). Parents can make use of the new porn blocking software to stop children accessing sites, which they feel, are inappropriate for children. Bradsher states that “blanket censorship effects very serious and worthwhile organizations like those involved in the fields of breast cancer, rape, HIV/aids and others working on behalf of marginalized and disadvantaged groups” (4).

People must be entitled to view and obtain whatever information they want to as long as they are not hurting other people in the process. Those in favor of internet censorship propose different measures to deal with the internet such as: “make it a criminal offense to transmit child pornography across the internet; make it illegal to send unwanted emails to people when they make it clear they are not interested; instigate some way of controlling all forms of communication to ensure compliance with regulation, and outlaw the publishing of offensive and obscene information” (Society 39).

Bradsher propses that “the making available of new technologies to parents which block all unwanted sites to ensure their children can ‘surf safely’” (4) and that “the introduction of a rating system where each page contains a few bytes of data which identify content type, whether suitable for minors, Christians etc. and would warn those concerned before loading up data” (4). As a result, Internet censorship is a topic of many debates and those in favor and against it state their own ideas and perceptions of what is appropriate and not appropriate for the benefit of our society.

The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues. 10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in his medium.

Through all the components of the Internet it becomes easy to transfer material that particular governments might find objectionable. However, all of these means of communicating on the Internet make up a large and vast system. For inspectors to monitor every e-mail, every article in every Newsgroup, every Webpage, every IRC channel, every Gopher site and every FTP site would be near impossible. Besides taking an ext raordinary amount of money and time, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech rights that are included in democratic constitutions and international aws. 1 It would be a breach of the First Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States of America declares that 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redr ess of grievances 12 Therefore it would be unconstitutional for any sort of censorship to occur on the Internet and affiliated services. Despite the illegality, restrictions on Internet ccess and content are increasing worldwide under all forms of government.

In France, a co untry where the press generally has a large amount of freedom, the Internet has recently been in the spotlight. A banned book on the health history of former French president Francois Mitterrand was republished electronically on the World Wide Web (WWW). Apparently, the electronic reproduction of Le Grand Secret by a third party wasn’t banned by a court that ruled that the printed version of the book unlawfully violated Mitterrand’s privacy.

To enforce censorship of the Internet, free societies find hat they become more repressive and closed societies find new ways to crush political expression and opposition. 3 Vice – President Al Gore, while at an international conference in Brussels about the Internet, in a keynote address said that [Cyberspace] is about protecting and enlarging freedom of expression for all our citizens … Ideas should not be checked at the border. 14 Another person attending that conference was Ann Breeson of the Ame rican Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to preserving many things including free speech.

She is quoted as saying, Our big victory at Brussels as that we pressured them enough so that Al Gore in his keynote address made a big point of stre ssing the importance of free speech on the Internet. 5 Many other organizations have fought against laws and have succeeded.

A prime example of this is the fight that various groups put on against the recent Communication Decency Act (CDA) of the U. S. Se nate. The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition on 26 February 1996 filed a historic lawsuit in Philadelphia against the U. S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Janet Reno to make certain that the First Amendment of the U. S. A. ould not be compr omised by the CDA.

The sheer range of plaintiffs alone, including the American Booksellers Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, Apple, Microsoft, America Online, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Commercial Internet eXchange Association , Wired, and HotWired, as well as thousands of netizens (citizens of the Internet) shows the dedication that is felt by many different people and groups to the cause of free speech on the Internet. 16 Words like *censored*, *censored*, piss, and tits. Words of which our mothers (at least some of them) would no doubt disapprove, but hich by no means should be regulated by the government.

But it’s not just about dirty words. It’s also about words like AIDS, gay, a nd breasts. It’s about sexual content, and politically controversial topics like drug addiction, euthanasia, and racism. 17 Just recently in France, a high court has struck down a bill that promoted the censorship of the Internet. Other countries have attempted similar moves. The Internet cannot be regulated in the way of other mediums simply because it is not the same as anyt hing else that we have. It is a totally new and unique form of communication and deserves to be given a hance to prove itself.

Laws of one country can not hold jurisdiction in another country and holds true on the Internet because it has no borders. Although North America (mainly the United States) has the largest share of servers, the Internet is still a worldwide network. This means that domestic regulations cannot oversee the rules of foreign countries. It would be just as easy for an American te en to download (receive) pornographic material from England, as it would be from down the street. One of the major problems is the lack of physical boundaries, making it ifficult to determine where violations of the law should be prosecuted.

There is no one place through which all information passes through. That was one of the key points that was stressed during the original days of the Internet, then called ARPANET. It started out as a defense project that would allow communication in the event of an e mergency such as nuclear attack. Without a central authority, information would pass around until it got where it was going. 18 This was intended to be similar to the road system. It is not necessary to take any specific route but rather anyone goes. In th e same way the nformation on the Internet starts out and eventually gets to it’s destination.

The Internet is full of anonymity. Since text is the standard form of communication on the Internet it becomes difficult to determine the identity and/or age of a specific person. Nothing is known for certain about a person accessing content. There are no signatures or photo-ids on the Internet therefore it is difficult to certify that illegal activities (regarding minors accessing restricted data) are taking place. Take for example a conversation on IRC. Two people could people talking to one another, bu t all that they see is text.

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the gender and/or age just from communication of this sort. Then if the conversationalist lies about any points mentioned above it would be extremely difficult t o know or prove otherwise. In this way governments could not restrict access to certain sites on the basis of ages. A thirteen-year-old boy in British Columbia could decide that he wanted to download pornography from an adult site in the U. S. The site may have warnings and age restrictions but they have no way of stopping him from receiving their material if he says e is 19 years of age when prompted.

The complexity in the way information is passed around the Internet means that if information has been posted, deleting this material becomes almost impossible. A good example of this is the junk mail that people refer to as spam. These include e-mails ad vertising products, usenet articles that are open for flames. Flames are heated letters that many times have no founding behind them. These seem to float around for ages before dying out because they are perfect material for flamewars. Flamewars are long, drawn out and highly heated discussions consisting of lames, which often time, obscenely, slander one’s reputation and personae.

Mostly these are immature arguments that are totally pointless except to those involved. The millions of people that partici pate on the Internet everyday have access to almost all of the data present. As well it becomes easy to copy something that exists on the Internet with only a click of a button. The relative ease of copying data means that the second information is posted to the Internet it may be archived somewhere else.

There are in fact many sites on the Internet that are devoted to the archiving of information including: tp. cdrom. com (which archives an extraordinary amount of software among others), www. rchive. org ( which is working towards archiving as much of the WWW as possible), and wuarchive. wustl. edu (which is dedicated towards archiving software, publications, and many other types of data).

It becomes hard to censor material that might be duplicated or triplic ated within a matter of minutes. An example could be the recent hacking of the U. S. Department of Justice’s Homepage and the hacking of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Homepage. Someone illegally obtained access to the omputer on which these homepages were stored and modified them.

It was done as a prank; however, both of these agencies have since shut down their pages. 2600 (www. 2600. com), a magazine devoted to hacking, has republished the hacked DoJ and CIA homepages on their website. The magazine ei ther copied the data straight from the hacked sites or the hacked site was submitted to the magazine. I don’t know which one is true but it does show the ease that data can be copied and distributed, as well it shows the difficulty in preventing material deemed inappropriate from appearing where it shouldn’t.

The Internet is much too complex a network for censorship to effectively occur. It is a totally new and unique environment in which communications transpire. Existing laws are not applicable to this medium. The lack of tangible boundaries causes confusion as to where violations of law take place. The Internet is made up of nameless interaction and anonymous communication. The intricacy of the Internet makes it near impossible to delete data that has been publicized. No one country should be allowed to, or could, regulate or censor the Internet.

Imagine yourself trapped inside another world, a world where your essence is made entirely of words that can say whatever you desire. You could be young or old, male or female or neither, you are only as limited as your imagination. Now Imagine that someone wants to have a say in what can be said, seen, and done in this brave new world, what would this change, and more importantly who decides what’s ‘good’ and what’s ‘bad’? In the ordinary and mundane world of real life people have always fought for the pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc.

They are subjects which have always shouted in the hearts of our nations heroes, and rightfully so. What would our world be like if the government controlled what we were allowed to see and to say? It seems that George Orwell described it best in his book 1984 when he gave the scenario of a society in which people who committed the heinous act of thoughtcrime, the act of thinking something that goes against the party line, mysteriously disappeared into the night never to be seen again.

Thankfully, the hordes of would be ‘thought police’ members have been staved off throughout history and we have achieved a relatively liberal society where people are, for the most part, able to speak their minds openly. Well, even in today’s world there are still people who get pissed off when they think that free speech goes to far and they say something about it. This brings me to my main point. The Internet. A land made possible in 1968 by the Dept.

Defense with the idea that if all other lines of communications were destroyed in the advent of war then at least we’d have computers, (I don’t know, maybe they thought the electricity might magically produce itself after the bombing stopped). Any ways, thankfully the Internet has evolved beyond that into something which encompasses just about every possible human interest out there. A hodgepodge of political ideals ranging from big business capitalism to the gender erasing equality of the socialist mindset make the Internet a place where conflicts of interest often arise.

These conflicts are what I’m going to concentrate on in this essay, I hope to show you that, although I don’t believe that kids need to be looking at stuff like drug pages or cyberporn, I don’t believe that censoring it so that no one can take a peep is the answer that we need. The answer that I am going to try to present will focus more on increasing the level of awareness on the part of the Internet user instead of black listing offensive material. I will also talk about the increasing debate on the ethics of canceling someone who is writing offensive material.

The question that we must address on this issue is do we, as Internet users, have the right to decide what others can say on the net? For years now the Internet has played the role of 7th heaven for those who want to get their hands on information of any kind. Sometimes, however, it becomes the ‘any kind’ part that scares parents who don’t want their young son ‘accidentally’ catching his first exposure to the birds and the bees on the family’s PC, or their daughter looking at the latest news on the Cannabis Cup results.

Parents have every right to be alarmed by the material that their children see because that’s part of being a parent, looking after your kid. However, does being a parent extend to someone who wants to look at such material? First you have look at the availability of objectionable material, in this case pornography. The following excerpt is by James Herrington from his essay “Beware of Chilling Freedom of Expression” which is in CyberReader, The Internet also can be a conduit for obscenity, and for children who know how to find it. Not that obscenity is new to human existence, even for minors.

Nor is salacious and vulgar material easy to locate on the Internet; ferreting it out requires a certain adeptness, even for seasoned Internet surfers. Its availability alone should not set the stage for cybercensorship. Although Herrington suggests that the availability of pornographic material on the net requires “a certain adeptness” this is olny a temporary solution to the problem. Kids are becoming more familiar with the Internet due to its increased use in schools and, because of this, it won’t be long before it becomes easier for kids to find things on the net.

However, the limited knowledge that kids posses as of right now gives us some time before the problem amplifies, this is where the parents come in. Parents today must no longer look at the Internet with apprehension, there is software available to block out offensive sights using key words and the Internet providers also have the right and power to enforce morality codes on their users. The responsibility to initiate this software falls upon the shoulders of concerned parents.

There doesn’t have to be an outright ban on “salacious and vulgar” material, people have the option to in effect create an Internet which is tailored to their needs without restricting the type of material which is presented on the entire net. Parents aren’t the only ones who are calling for changes on the net, regular users have often complained of ‘flaming’, the act of sending verbally abusive messages. In reaction to flaming netizens have begun utilizing the ‘cancelbot’ function, in other words, destroying offending messages.

There is a danger in this however, where do we draw the line between canceling someone because they’re offensive and canceling them because you don’t want to hear what they have to say? Here’s what Daniel P. Dern, author of The Internet Guide for New Users, has to say about canceling. There is a danger of the cancel wars shifting from inappropriate resource use to canceling somebody based on ‘I don’t like your opinion. At what point does somebody say, ‘I don’t like this person, and I’m going to cancel them? (Lewis, “No more “Anything Goes” Cyberspace Gets Censors”)

The question that we face now is, should the cancel command be continued or another system be imposed. One idea is to reduce the whole thing to majority rule basis, I do not believe this is the right choice, the whole idea of free speech is to allow the minority the right to voice their opinions. So, what answer can we turn to? A system in which a complaint is lobbied through a committee would slow the process to an intolerable length for the petitioner. I offer this idea, that the system remain the same, minus the cancelbot.

There isn’t any need to cancel someone is to take the out-of-sight out-of-mind approach which only ignores the problem. As Clifford Stoll, author of Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway 220, Internet users have the capability of self redemption. I suspect that the main reason why we see so few law suits is that the network provides an ideal system for rebuttal. Whatever someone says against you online, you can reply to within hour, with the same distribution, and to the same audience.

The Internet is a land where people may defend themselves by the verbal sword, a land of freedom wherein its peoples should be able to speak freely. This is the code by which the Internet should live. People must become educated in the areas of software advances and the Internet itself otherwise the Internet might never live up to its potential greatness. It is the users themselves who decide what freedoms remain on the net and so I implore you to become more responsible netizens and up hold the edicts and ethics of the net to stop the invasion of would be ‘thought police’.

There is a growing debate about censoring the internet. Some people think that the internet is protected under the first ammendment and cannot be censored. Others think that some of the material that is on the net needs to be filtered and regulated. The word censorship is defined as examining any material and prohibiting what is objectionable, according to Webster’s II dictionary. Censoring the internet is a violation of the first ammendment rights of every citizen in the United States. There are two general truths that some people feel are attitudes towards censoring the internet.

The first is that very few people admit to favoring it. The second is that no matter who you are, in a matter of minutes spent surfing the net almost anyone can find something that they find to be offensive. In fact, some web surfers feel that the truly inappropriate things are inspired by one’s own religion. For example, the Nurenberg Files website showed pictures of mangled fetuses with the photograph, name, and address of some abortion clinic doctors. If someone were to kill one of the doctors then an ‘X’ was put over their picture.

This site may not harm a child, but it seems that the focus today is on what is inappropriate for the child to see. What about the adults? A site like this “clearly acts to corrupt and deprave the adults who take it seriously” (Brown 48). Another reason for not censoring the internet is the psychological effects that it can have on a child. The filtering of the internet can tell a child that adults do not trust them to surf the net on their own. This can lead them to believe that they can not make their own decisions, and that a computer determines what right and wrong is.

These filters also give off the impressions that the communities are unsafe and the school officials have not got the know how to do their job. Many teachers try to teach their students esponsibility. This can be done in many ways, one of which is through the internet policy in our schools. By not censoring the internet and trusting children to make the right decisions they can get a boost of self-esteem that so many children need these days (Nellen 53). The filtering devices can obstruct a teacher in their quest to teach their students.

For example, Ted Nellen wanted to use to obtain some information on the AIDS virus to help him teach his class. He tried to get information of the internet at the school he teaches at and found that to be impossible because the filtering devices that ere installed worked (Nellen 53). Another question that needs to be asked is who are the people that are determining whether a site should be filtered or not? Just because they find something offensive does not mean that there is not some one out there who would find the site unoffensive.

These people can filter what is put on the internet, so what is stopping them from doing this sort of thing in other areas of American culture. Filtering the internet is not the answer to the problem. Children and adults should be educated on what is right and wrong on the internet and not treated like they are criminals (Nellen 53). The software that is available for the purpose of internet filtering and blocking has been able to block out certain web sites, but the web is always changing and the software is outdated so fast that censoring that way is not worth it. Another way to censor is to leave it up to the internet server.

Even they cannot keep up with the growing number of sites and monitor each and every one. These undesirable sites are not easily found unless a specific word is typed in as a search engine or if the web site is known. However, those who are for censoring the internet all have the same argument, which is that the obscene ites will cause some kind of unacceptable behavior that will lead to violence. They feel the software is a good thing even though it becomes obselete within a short period of When a person subscribes to an internet provider they are receive with a few services.

The first one is the use web itself. The user can see postings made by the internet provider or by other people. A user can access any website he or she wants as long as they know the website’s address. Another option that internet users have is the ability to send messages across the web to another person by sending them an e-mail. E-mail is included in most internet servers’ packages. The last major service that the internet provides is Usenet News. Usenet News is where all the issues of today are discussed by internet users.

These kinds of things are what some critics want to censor. E-mail is just like using the telephone and phone calls are not censored, so the internet should not be either. If the whole story cannot be presented on the internet then the Usenet News is useless because no one can get all the facts. The web itself is where advertisements and offers take place and the only way to find these offensive sites is to ype in a key word that a child must already know. On the internet a user can put up signs, banners, ads, displays, etc. of anything they want.

The press always uses the first ammendment as their justification for what they do and the internet users should also receive the same benefits from the first ammendment as the reporters do. There are three main ways that the attempt to block obscene sites from children. The first is software that goes through a list of offensive sites and if the one using the computer feels the site is inappropriate then the software will block the site. The second s software that looks for words that could be connected to pornography or violence and chooses when to deny access to the site.

The last one is provided by the internet server and blocks out portions of the site that are inappropriate (The Economist 84). However, there are new sites popping up all the time and the software cannot keep up with the growing number of sites. Children can just type in any word and get a whole list of sites related to that topic. In some cases the blocking of anything to do with that topic can prove to be anything but helpful. For example, America Online’s word-screening oftware caused a forum on cancer to be shut down because the word “breast” was mentioned.

The White House web site was shut off because the word couple was mentioned (The Economist 84). In addition, net minders like Surf Watch have no official watcher to tell the users what sites are being blocked. Surf Watch seems to be the leader in the struggle to keep inappropriate sites away from the eyes of children. The installation is easy for anyone, even the computer illiterate. Surf Watch will block up to sixteen categories in four main categories which are violence and hate speech, gambling, sexually intended items, and illegal drugs and alcohol.

Search Watch will not allow any search engines that are considered sexually explicit. At the present time some of these net watchers are not free and some people do not want to pay the money to own one. A simple solution to the idea of censoring the internet for everyone with a computer to be given one of these net watchers free with the purchase of a computer. The government has a good reason to be involved with the controlling access operation because: As networked digital communications become more prevalent, consumers will be faced with justifying the purchase of a PC and modem or computer-powered television.

If that purchase comes with the added cost of access-control software, there’s an inherent disincentive to embrace interactive technologies (Ratcliffe 16). As long as the system allows the computer owner to change his or her list of inappropriate sites, then it does not violate the first ammendment right. In order to make this access control system available threre are a few simple things that must be done. First, the access control API would need to be available for all the web browsers and microsoft and apple computers.

An ambitious company could promote the API as freeware and allow for the option of add ons to this free piece of oftware. However there is a problem, getting support for such a plan. Using the International Telecommunications Union the United Nations could get a global license to this kind of technology and distribute it through the International Telecommunications Union for an annual cost. After this was all squared away the individual countries could decide what needs to be installed and how to download additions to the program A solution to this problem was presented in Paris in May of 1996.

The meeting was attended by a plethora of internet and computer firms. They decided that self-rating was he way to go when it came to preventing the children from seeing inappropriate sites. The Platform for Internet Content Selection was the name given to this idea and it allows internet providers to put a rating on their contents using software that runs on either the users on computer or doing it through the internet provider, which is more difficult to get around. This allows for people to write what they want on the internet, but what they write may not be seen as appropriate and will be blocked (The Economist 84).

Another argument for censoring the internet is the pornographic sites that are asily accessible can cause children to view things that are inappropriate. In 1996 President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act which included the Communications Decency Act. The Communications Decency Act was intended to protect young children from those sites which are not in their best interests to see (Lewis 114). However, there are problems with this law. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not successfully get the job done. Any child can still find material that is not meant for them to see.

The act says that adults can communicate using any words they want to as long they are careful not to be accused of harassment. These words and phrases can seem sexual to one person, but just casual conversation to another. The laws that were made to protect minors from offensive material are very unclear. The term “indecent” that was used in items aimed at protecting adults as well as children is unconstitutionally It is also stupid, because it assumes that Congress can regulate an international computer network that is 99 percent private and that is composed of users who are more than 50 percent non-American.

It assumes it can outsmart my two teenagers technologically, and it is offensive because it assumes that the Government can rovide a better moral compass for my kids than my wife and I are already Lewis feels that the best way to prevent inappropriate material from being viewed on the internet is to make all the users identifiable (Lewis 84). This idea may work for a while, but false identifications can be entered and if that is said to be impossible all anyone has to do is look at all the under twenty-one people who have id’s saying they are twenty-one.

It would only be a matter of time before fake id’s would be available for internet use. Edwin Diamond said “It doesn’t take a magnifying glass to find hard-core ornography on the Internet… and since many youngsters can navigate circles around their elders on the Net, some adults are in near panic” (Diamond 30). Pornography is defined as material, films, printed matter, or devices dealing with sexual poses or acts considered indecent by the public. Pornography is censored in almost every form of communication.

Movies, books, and even stores that specialize in sexual toys, movies, and magazines are being censored in this day and age in stores that make a profit from selling sexual material. Pornography is not something that a user justs happens to discover. The ornographic sites need to be triggered by a key word typed into the search engine. Children who find these sites have to have some knowledge of the topic of sex in order to type in a word that would lead to a sexual site.

Of course there are accidental discoveries of these sites, but any further exploration is done by the user. Many people want to regulate these sites, but they do not realize the amount of money it costs or the time it involves in order to effectively censor the net. Moreover, studies have been conducted that show that pornography is represents only a small portion of the entire internet traffic. Steve Lloyd feels regulation of the net is not very practical because “It’s virtually impossible to regulate the net because of the global nature of this communications device.

It would mean monitoring every phone call into the Internet which is impossible The internet was designed to be able to operate under any condition. The internet service providers have found it very costly to censor portions of newsgroups without blocking the whole site. Pornography is a very miniscule amount of the internet user’s interest (Gidari). Gidari feels that internet regulation is a futile thought because : Anything as massive as the global system of interconnected networks that is the internet can not be “regulated” in any meaningful manner.

The very nature of the internet precludes its effective regulation. It was designed to be a self-healing network of diverse platforms capable of opreating under the most adverse of conditions – nuclear holocaust” (Gidari). If what Albert Gidari says is true then the internet can not be censored because that would defeat the whole purpose of its creation. The following editorial appeared in the Knight Ridder Tribune News Service. These articles are right on the money as to why he internet should not be censored. Here is the first article in part: Knowledge at the fingertips.

That’s the charm of the Internet, the global network of computers that allows anyone with the capability, even a grade-schooler, to tap into vast pools of information at any time. The Internet, indeed, may be the closest society has come yet to free and equal access to information for all. The relative ease of access is also the Internet’s bane. There is no telling the range of information one could be exposed to or the nature of activities one could be drawn into, knowingly or unknowingly. With children, controlling what they see once hey are on-line becomes a problem as well.

Pornography on computer networks and unsavory characters on chat lines have garnered much attention, but consider the three eighth-graders arrested recently for allegedly plotting to bomb their junior high school in the Syracuse area of New York. They gained information on materials and how to build the bombs from the Internet, and police say they were serious about following through. They had set off a test bomb in a field behind an elementary school. As has been pointed out many times, an interested person could gather the same information from a public library.

True enough, but space nd money preclude public libraries from stocking every piece of available information. The process of selection, based on the principle of community standards and needs, imposes some limitation. Global computer networks bypass even such minimal limitation. Being plugged into the global network is a release from traditional barriers to knowledge, and with the vast pools of information come multitudes of opportunities for misuse. Computer-inspired pranks and outright crime, from murder to fraud, are as likely as the potential for beneficial use.

As the network industry matures, incidents such as the youngsters’ bomb plot ill continue to invite serious efforts to reduce abuses. Provisions in the new telecommunications bill such as the ban against pornography and indecent material directed at minors are one form of response. In a free system such as the Internet, however, monitoring data from computers worldwide may be next to impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy the freedom that gives the Internet its value. Personal computers have brought global links down to individual levels.

In time, from their very usage, new technologies generate new levels of public awareness and their own standards of se consistent with the constitutional rights of all users. In that vein, the market’s response in developing software allowing parents or operators to block access to certain services is most reasonable and practical. The only guarantee against egregious abuse of the global computer networks, in the end, is a well-developed ethic of personal responsibility, in which users and those who provide the services are mindful of the potential for mischief (Knight Ridder 212).

This article was provided as a way of showing the reader why the internet should not be censored. The solution is not in censoring the internet, but in teaching children what the difference between right and wrong is. Like the article says “In a free system such as the Internet, however, monitoring data from computers worldwide may be next to impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy the freedom that gives the Internet its value” (Knight Ridder 212).

The second article is also pro internet freedom as well. Here is the article to clarify any misconceptions about this paper’s purpose: Like the Maytag repairman in the TV commercials, Congress is itching to fix something that isn’t broken: the Internet and online services. As part of the vast new telecommunications bill, both House and Senate are on the brink of making it a federal crime to expose minors to naughty words or pictures in cyberspace. Double-clicking the ”send” icon could become a dangerous act.

Jail terms and huge fines would be slapped on anyone caught ”knowingly” transmitting indecent material to minors, or to any freely accessible area of a computer network. Reports from the online front indicate that dirty talk and sexually graphic images are far less prevalent, or available, than the recent congressional lather on the topic would lead you to believe. In fact, the glossy mags behind the counter at any convenience store are probably more accessible to the young. So far, though, nothing has served to turn back this movement.

Never mind that the Justice Department insists existing laws are adequate to combat illegal pornography, in whatever form. Never mind that, given the global nature of the Internet, any attempt to enforce a national standard of decency is doomed. Never mind that the whole push to set federal government up as cyber-censor runs contrary to the prevailing philosophy: Get intrusive federal bureaucrats off the backs of citizens and trust in the magic of the ree market to solve problems. The maddening thing is this is one case where the profit motive ”is” riding to the rescue.

Ever since the alarms first went up, the software industry’s wizards have been churning out programs that enable adults to monitor and block objectionable material. Not even a flaming _ e-mail parlance for a tongue-lashing _ from House Speaker Newt Gingrich has made much difference. Like many folks, Speaker Gingrich regards the congressional crackdown on the online world as an assault on every citizen’s basic right to free discourse. Over the summer and in recent weeks, it appeared the House would ecommend far less intrusive measures than the Senate.

But the push for more reasonable steps such as online warning signs has faltered. What hope is there of keeping cyberspace as free as possible? A presidential veto would be the quick way; court cases and the inevitable discovery that the harsh restrictions just aren’t enforceable would be the long, costly way. It would be better if a public outcry convinced Congress now that its attempts to curb Net-surfing are about as foolish as ordering the waves not to come rolling in (Knight Ridder 214). The two of these articles were intended to be a supplement to the main idea of this paper.

They are two examples that further show why the internet can not be censored. The obscene material found on the internet has caused some decisions to be made about what violates community standards. A private bulletin board operator in California was prosecuted in Tennessee for making some material available to a member of the Memphis community. The operator in California was found guilty by the Memphis judicial system. The jury ruled that local community were comprimised when the offensive material was made available to the postal worker from their community.

Even hough this sort of thing may be legal in California or on the web, the Memphis community felt that this sort of thing was inappropriate. According to Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, even with the ruling in this case “The question of community standards hasn’t been adequately solved solved in any medium” (Quittner The internet should not be censored. There are many other ways to solve the problem of inappropriate web sites on the internet and censorship is not the best one. Educating people on the uses and misuses of the internet is one of the best ways to filter the world wide web as well as others already mentioned.

The Internet began in the 1960’s. In 1962, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense developed a network of computers called ARPAnet. At first, this network only connected military and government computer systems. The purpose was to make all information safe, so that in disaster or war, if one computer was destroyed, it’s information would not be lost. In 1966, the ARPAnet was expanded to include universities and other institutions. One of the first universities to be added was Utah State University.

Soon, large companies and corporations were added, too. By 1990, anyone with a computer, a modem, and Internet software could connect to the Internet. (Sterling) During the past decade, our society has become based on the ability to move large amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has surely influenced everyone’s life. The natural evolution of computers, and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop.

This global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere ractions of a second, and enables even the common person to access information world-wide. The World Wide Web is made up of sites, collections of files that can be set up in a matter of hours, often for free, and allow unlimited distribution of information on virtually any subject. Usenet is a collection of newsgroups or bulletin boards containing messages centered on their own specific topics. Users can read each others messages or post or cancel their own.

With advances such as software that allows users with a sound ard to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is key to the future of the knowledge society. At present, this net is the abstract of the American first amendment: free speech. It is a place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it. The key to the world-wide success of the Internet is its protection of free speech, not only in America, but in other countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution.

To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists’ cookbooks and countless other things, many of which could be considered tasteless. With such a high volume of everyday users, those things are bound to offend someone The newest wave of laws floating through law making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity. Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable by jail to send “vulgar” language over the net, and to export encryption software.

No matter how small, any attempt at overnment intervention in the Internet will stifle the greatest communication innovation of this century. The government wants to maintain control over this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of children as a smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the Internet, while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation. Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention.

The Bill of Rights itself protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the First Amendment, and protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government in the fourth Amendment (“The Bill of Rights”). What is the Internet? The current body of laws existing today in America does not apply well to the Internet. As with any new media, especially one this flexible, new issues are bound to arise. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers, the mainframe computers that carry and distribute the web pages cannot be expected to review every title?

Is it like a phone company who must ignore what it carries because of privacy? Is it like a broadcasting medium, TV, radio, where the government can monitor what is broadcast? The trouble is that the Internet can be all or none of these things depending on how it’s used. The Internet cannot be viewed as one type of transfer media under current broadcast definitions. The Internet differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar site without first entering a complicated address, or following a link from another source. The Internet is much more like going into a book store and choosing to look at adult magazines. Miller 75) Why does it suddenly become illegal to post something that has been legal for years in print? The imposed law apparently would also criminalize private mail: “… I can call my brother on the phone and say anything–but if I say it on the Internet, it’s illegal” (Levy 53). Even If Laws Were Passed They Could Easily Be Avoided Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U. S. government sources helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer control it.

Many of the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come from overseas. There is no clear boundary between information held in the U. S. and information stored in other countries, nor is there any way to tell their origin by the URL, their universal address (for example, a site physically located in Japan could carry . jp as an extension of its Internet address, for the purpose of geographical dentification, but very few do so)Data held in foreign computers can be accessed just as easily as data in America, all it takes is the click of a mouse to access.

Even if American government tried to regulate the Internet, they would still have no control over what is posted in other countries, and no practical way to stop foreign servers from carrying it: Just as the Internet’s predecessor was originally designed to uphold communications after a nuclear attack by rerouting data to compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers, today’s Internet still works on a similar design. The very nature this design allows the Internet to overcome any kind of barriers put in its way.

For example, if a major line between two servers in two countries, is cut, then the Internet users will find another way around this obstacle. This obstacle avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an entire nation from indecent information in other countries. (Levy 57) And doing so would always raise a few eyebrows and many dissatisfied voices: Recently, a major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960’s protest.

A research associate at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the school’s computer networks. Martin Rimm put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded (a total of 6. 4 million). Pictures of similar content had recently been declared obscene by a local court, and the school feared they might be held responsible for the content of its network. The school administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the newsgroups where most of this obscenity is suspected to come from.

A total of 80 newsgroups were removed, causing a large disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was unconstitutional. After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to impose censorship. (Elmer-Dewitt 102) Software Based Protection Currently, there is software being released that promises to block children’s access to known X-rated Internet newsgroups and sites.

These software packages proved rather expensive given their low efficiency. However, since most adults rely on their computer literate children to setup these programs, the children will be able to find ways around them ( always does the trick). This mimics real life, where, in spite of age requirement to purchase them, these children would surely be able to get their hands on an adult magazine. Regardless of what types of software or safeguards are used to protect the children of the Information age, there will always be ways around them.

This necessitates for the education of the children to deal with reality. Altered views of an electronic world translate easily into altered views of the real world. When it comes to our children, censorship is a far less important issue than good parenting. We must teach our kids that the Internet is a extension and a reflection of the real world, and we have to show them how to enjoy the good things and avoid the bad things. This isn’t the government’s responsibility. It’s ours (Miller 76)

The Internet is a wonderful place of entertainment and education, but like all places used by millions of people, it has some murky corners people would prefer children not to explore. In the physical world, society as a whole wants to protect children, but there are no social or physical constraints to Internet surfing. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, also known as the Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act, has been introduced in the U. S. Congress.

It would make it a criminal offense to make available to children anything that is indecent, or to send anything indecent with “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” (“Stop the Communications … ” n. p. ). The goal of this bill is to try to make all public discourse on the Internet suitable for young children. The issue of whether is it necessary to have censorship on the Internet is being argued all over the world. Censorship would damage the atmosphere of the freedom to express ideas on the Internet; therefore, government should not encourage censorship.

The Internet was originally a place for people to freely express their ideas worldwide. It is also one of America’s most valuable types of technology. Ordinary people use the Net for communication, expressing their opinions, or obtaining up-to-date information from the World Wide Web (WWW). The Internet can be compared to a church. In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and they can either take part or not.

It’s the choice of the user. The Internet has no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The networks may have presidents and CEO’s, but that’s a different issue; there is no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole. As stated by Frances Hentoff, the staff writer for The Village Voice and the author of First Freedoms, “on an info superhighway driven by individuals, there are no cops preventing users from downloading” (Hentoff 1). Internet users can broadcast or express anything they want.

The fact that the Net has no single authority figure sets forth a problem about what kind of materials could be available on the Net. The U. S. government is now trying to pass bills to prevent misuse of the Net. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995 was introduced to the U. S. Congress. Under the Censorship Bill, a person breaks the law if he/she puts a purity test on a web page without making sure children cannot access the page. Also, if a person verbally assaults someone, he/she breaks the law.

If a university, where some students may be under 18 years old, carries the alt. sex*. newsgroups, which contains adult material, it breaks the law. According to George Melloan from the Wall Street Journal, a censorship bill was passed by the Senate 84-16 in July, and an anticensorship bill was passed by the House 420-4 in August. There are now four different sets of censorship and anticensorship language in the House and Senate versions of the Telecomm reform bill, which contradict each other and will have to be reconciled (Melloan, n. ).

Another crucial Internet crime is the theft of credit card numbers. Companies do business on the Net, and credit card numbers are stored on their servers; everyone with the necessary computer knowledge could hack in and obtain such databases for illegal purposes. To cite an instance, the most infamous computer terrorist, Kevin Mitnick, “waived extradition and is now in jail in California, charged with computer fraud and illegal use of a telephone access device.

The list of allegations against him include theft of many files and documents, including twenty-thousand credit card numbers from Netcom On-Line Services, which provides thousands with access to the Internet” (Warren 52). Many experts have pointed out that government censorship is not possible. Howard Rheingold, the editor of the Whole World Review, observes that, “the ‘censor the Net’ approach is not just morally misguided. It’s becoming technically and politically impossible” (Rheingold n. p. ).

First, it is not fair to exclude the freedom and damage the atmosphere of freely expressing ideas just for the safety of children. Corn-Revere, an expert on Internet censorship at the Howgan & Harson Law Firm, points out that “the purpose of indecency regulation is to keep adult material from falling into the hands of kids. When he first introduced a similar bill last year, Senator Exon said he was concerned that the Information Superhighway was in danger of becoming an electronic ‘red light district’ and that he wanted to bar his granddaughter’s access to unsuitable information” (Corn-Revere 24).

It is clear that Senator Exon introduced the bill to prevent minors from viewing unsuitable material on the Net. In addition, Meleedy, a computer science graduate student at Harvard University, said that if “the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it? ” (Meleedy 1). As predicted by Corn-Revere, “At the very least, the law will force content providers to make access more difficult, which will affect all users, not just the young” (Corn-Revere 70).

Censoring the Net is technically and politically impossible; it will damage the atmosphere of freedom and free idea expression on the Net; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States. The freedom of idea expression is what makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be waived for any reason.

The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, also known as the Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act, has been introduced in the U. S. Congress. It would make it a criminal offense to make available to children anything that is indecent, or to send anything indecent with “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” (“Stop the Communications … ” n. p. ). The goal of this bill as written (though not as stated by its proponents) is to try to make all public discourse on the Internet suitable for young children.

The issue of whether is it necessary to have censorship on the Internet is being argued all over the world. There are numerous homepages on the World Wide Web discussing this issue, or asking people to sign the petition to stop government censorship. The Internet was originally a place for people to freely express their ideas worldwide. It is also one of America’s most valuable types of technology; scientists use email for quick and easy communication. They post their current scientific discoveries on the Usenet newsgroups so other scientists in the same field of study all over the world can know in minutes.

Ordinary people use the Net for communication, expressing their opinions in the newsgroups, obtaining up-to-date information from the WWW, acquiring files by using FTP, etc. Censorship would damage the atmosphere of the freedom to express ideas on the Internet; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. In the Internet community, there is a large volume of technical terms. For this reason, it is first necessary to examine the terminology specific to Internet. The Internet is a world wide computer network. The “Net” is frequently used in place of Internet.

In the words of Allison and Baxter, two experts on Internet Censorship at the Monash University, “the Internet is comprised of various digital media subsuming many of the distinct roles of traditional media” (Allison and Baxter 3). Electronic mail (email), which is one component of the Internet, approximates person to person letters, memoranda, notes and even phone calls. Sound and pictures are sometimes sent along with text. Email is mainly for private communication. Electronic mailing lists are rather like club newsletters and readers have to contract-in or subscribe to a list.

Another term that is often used is electronic news (enews/Usenet), enews is a broadcast, free to the Internet medium. It has some properties of radio or television, particularly talk-back radio or television, in that the destination is indiscriminate. The term FTP is also frequently used. File transfer protocol (FTP) started as an Internet archival and retrieval medium, somewhat analogous to traditional libraries. Files can be retrieved from distant computers using a traditional text-based interface.

The world-wide web (WWW), which is another component of the Net, can be used to “publish” material that would traditionally appear in journals, magazines, posters, books, television and even on film. The term UNIX, “a widely heard computer term, is a multi-user, multitasking operating system originally developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, at AT&T Bell Laboratories, in 1969 for use on minicomputers” (“UNIX” n. p. ). To understand the background of the controversy, it is also necessary to give a brief history on the Internet.

The Internet was created about twenty years ago in an attempt to connect a U. S. Defense Department network called the ARPAnet and various other radio and satellite networks. The ARPAnet was an experimental network designed to support military research; in particular, research about how to build networks that could withstand partial outages (such as bomb attacks) and still function. At about the same time the Internet was coming into being, Ethernet local area networks (“LANs”) were developed. Most of these workstations came with Berkeley UNIX, which included IP (Internet Protocol) networking software.

This created a new demand: rather than connecting to a single large timesharing computer per site, organizations wanted to connect the ARPAnet to their entire local network. The demand keeps growing today. Now that most four-year colleges are connected to the Net, people are trying to get secondary and primary schools connected. People who have graduated from college where they have used the resources of the Net in classes, know what the Internet is good for, and talk their employers into connecting different corporations.

All this activity points to continued growth, networking problems to solve, evolving technologies, and job security for networkers (Willmott 107). The Internet can also be compared to a church. In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and they can either take part or not. It’s the choice of the user. The Internet has no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The constituent networks may have presidents and CEO’s, but that’s a different issue; there is no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole.

As stated by Frances Hentoff, the staff writer for The Village Voice and the author of First Freedoms, “on an info superhighway driven by individuals, there are no cops preventing users from downloading” (Hentoff 1). Internet users can broadcast or express anything they want. The fact that the Net has no single authority figure sets forth a problem about what kind of materials could be available on the Net. The U. S. government is now trying to pass bills to prevent misuse of the Net. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, which has already been discuss earlier, was introduced to the U.

S. Congress. Under the Censorship Bill, a person breaks the law if he/she puts a purity test on a web page without making sure children cannot access the page. Also, if a person verbally assaults someone on IRC, he/she breaks the law. If a university, where some students may be under 18 years old, carries the alt. sex. * newsgroups, which contains adult material, it breaks the law. According to George Melloan from the Wall Street Journal, a censorship bill was passed by the Senate 84-16 in July, and an anticensorship bill was passed by the House 420-4 in August.

There are now four different sets of censorship and anticensorship language in the House and Senate versions of the Telecomm reform bill, which contradict each other and will have to be reconciled (Melloan, n. p. ). In order to understand the need for the ever-growing body of legislation, it is important to explore the controversy, and the current problems involved with the Net as it exists must be introduced. The problem that concerns most people is offensive material such as pornography.

As pointed out by Allison and Baxter, “Possible (offensive) topics are behavior (drugs, … nudity, political/economic/social opinion, violence, racial/ethnic, religious, coarse language, sexual/gender orientation, [and] sexuality” (Allison and Baxter 3). Since the Internet is open to everyone, children are very easily exposed to such material. According to Allison and Baxter, “the information provided on the Internet, particularly through the WWW, ranges across train time-tables, university lecture notes, books, art exhibits, film promotions, the wisdom and ravings of individuals and, yes, pornographic pictures” (Allison and Baxter 3).

Moreover, many high schools in the United States provide Internet access to students, which is very useful for looking up information, but if a student intends to look for inappropriate material, he/she is very likely to find such material simply by doing an Internet search. Another crucial Internet crime is the theft of credit card numbers. Companies do business on the Net, and credit card numbers are stored on their servers; everyone with the necessary computer knowledge could hack in and obtain such databases for illegal purposes.

To cite an instance, the most infamous computer terrorist, Kevin Mitnick, “waived extradition and is now in jail in California, charged with computer fraud and illegal use of a telephone access device. The list of allegations against him include theft of many files and documents, including twenty-thousand credit card numbers from Netcom On-Line Services, which provides thousands with access to the Internet” (Warren 52). Americans have to come up with a solution in order to keep children away from inappropriate material and to prevent misuses of the Net.

One reaction to this inapplicability has been the “Censor the Net” approach (the censorship bill), which is being debated worldwide. First, the meaning of “Censoring the Net” must be explained. Simply, it is the banning of offensive material. To see if the government should censor the Net, it is imperative to list the advantages and disadvantages of the “censor the Net” approach. The advantage of government censorship is that ideally, children and teenagers could be kept away from unsuitable material. However, many experts have pointed out that government censorship is not possible.

Howard Rheingold, the editor of the Whole World Review, observes that, “the ‘censor the Net’ approach is not just morally misguided. It’s becoming technically and politically impossible” (Rheingold n. p. ). First, it is not fair to exclude the freedom and damage the atmosphere of freely expressing ideas just for the safety of children. Corn-Revere, an expert on Internet censorship at the Howgan & Harson Law Firm, points out that “the purpose of indecency regulation is to keep adult material from falling into the hands of kids.

When he first introduced a similar bill last year, Senator Exon said he was concerned that the Information Superhighway was in danger of becoming an electronic ‘red light district’ and that he wanted to bar his granddaughter’s access to unsuitable information”(Corn-Revere 24). It is clear that Senator Exon introduced the bill to prevent minors from viewing unsuitable material on the Net.

In addition, Meleedy, a computer science graduate student at Harvard University, questions that if “the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it? Meleedy 1) Allison and Baxter assert that, “the most significant new properties of the Internet media are the diversity of information sources and their ability to reach almost anywhere in the world. Authors range from major corporations such as IBM and Disney to school children” (Allison and Baxter 3). As predicted by Corn-Revere, “At the very least, the law will force content providers to make access more difficult, which will affect all users, not just the young” (Corn-Revere 70).

Censoring the Net is technically and politically impossible; it will damage the atmosphere of freedom and free idea expression on the Net; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States. According to Corn-Reverse, “it has been suggested that, ‘on-line systems give people far more genuinely free speech and free press than ever before in human history'” (Corn-Reverse 71).

Rheingold predicts that “Heavy-handed attempts to impose restrictions on the unruly but incredibly creative anarchy of the Net could kill the spirit of cooperative knowledge-sharing that makes the Net valuable to millions” (Rheingold n. p. ). The freedom of idea expression is what makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be waived for any reason. Additionally, only a very small portion of the Net contains offensive material, most people do not use the Net for pornography. Caragata from Maclean’s magazine observes that, “it is pornography that stirs the most controversy.

But while there is no doubt that pornography is popular, it amounts to a trickle compared with everything else available on the Net” (Caragata 51). The Net is mostly being used for communication and information exchange, and only a tiny portion of the Net contains pornography and other offensive material. It must be understood that censoring the Net is technically impossible. According to Allison and Baxter, “in principle, it is impossible to monitor all material being transmitted on the Internet.

The Internet is a wonderful place of entertainment and education but like all places used by millions of people, it has some murky corners people would prefer children not to explore. In the physical world society as a whole conspires to protect children, but there are no social or physical constraints to Internet surfing. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, also known as the Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act, has been introduced in the U. S. Congress.

It would make it a criminal offense to make available to children anything that is indecent, or to send anything indecent with “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, r harass” (“Stop the Communications … ” n. p. ). The goal of this bill as written (though not as stated by its proponents) is to try to make all public discourse on the Internet suitable for young children. The issue of whether is it necessary to have censorship on the Internet is being argued all over the world. There are numerous homepages on the World Wide Web discussing this issue, or asking people to sign the petition to stop government censorship.

The Internet was originally a place for people to freely express their ideas worldwide. It is also one of America’s most valuable types of technology; cientists use email for quick and easy communication. They post their current scientific discoveries on the Usenet newsgroups so other scientists in the same field of study all over the world can know in minutes. Ordinary people use the Net for communication, expressing their opinions in the newsgroups, obtaining up-to-date information from the WWW, acquiring files by using FTP, etc.

Censorship would damage the atmosphere of the freedom to express ideas on the Internet; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. In the Internet community, there is a large volume of technical terms. For this eason, it is first necessary to examine the terminology specific to Internet. The Internet is a world wide computer network. The “Net” is frequently used in place of Internet. In the words of Allison and Baxter, two experts on Internet Censorship at the Monash University, “the Internet is comprised of various digital media subsuming many of the distinct roles of traditional media” (Allison and Baxter 3).

Electronic mail (email), which is one component of the Internet, approximates person to person letters, memoranda, notes and even phone calls. Sound and pictures are sometimes sent along with text. Email is mainly for private ommunication. Electronic mailing lists are rather like club newsletters and readers have to contract-in or subscribe to a list. Another term that is often used is electronic news (enews/Usenet), enews is a broadcast, free to the Internet medium. It has some properties of radio or television, particularly talk-back radio or television, in that the destination is indiscriminate. The term FTP is also frequently used.

File transfer protocol (FTP) started as an Internet archival and retrieval medium, somewhat analogous to traditional libraries. Files can be retrieved from distant computers using a traditional ext-based interface. The world-wide web (WWW), which is another component of the Net, can be used to “publish” material that would traditionally appear in journals, magazines, posters, books, television and even on film. The term UNIX, “a widely heard computer term, is a multi-user, multitasking operating system originally developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, at AT&T Bell Laboratories, in 1969 for use on minicomputers” (“UNIX” n. . ).

To understand the background of the controversy, it is also necessary to give a brief history on the Internet. The Internet was created about twenty years ago n an attempt to connect a U. S. Defense Department network called the ARPAnet and various other radio and satellite networks. The ARPAnet was an experimental network designed to support military research; in particular, research about how to build networks that could withstand partial outages (such as bomb attacks) and still function.

At about the same time the Internet was coming into being, Ethernet local area networks (“LANs”) were developed. Most of these workstations came with Berkeley UNIX, which included IP (Internet Protocol) networking software. This created a new demand: rather than connecting to a ingle large timesharing computer per site, organizations wanted to connect the ARPAnet to their entire local network. The demand keeps growing today. Now that most four-year colleges are connected to the Net, people are trying to get secondary and primary schools connected.

People who have graduated from college where they have used the resources of the Net in classes, know what the Internet is good for, and talk their employers into connecting different corporations. All this activity points to continued growth, networking problems to solve, evolving technologies, and job security for networkers (Willmott 107). The Internet can also be compared to a church. In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and they can either take part or not.

It’s the choice of the user. The Internet has no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The constituent networks may have presidents and CEO’s, but that’s a different issue; there is no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole. As stated by Frances Hentoff, the staff writer for The Village Voice and the author of First Freedoms, “on an info superhighway driven by individuals, there re no cops preventing users from downloading” (Hentoff 1). Internet users can broadcast or express anything they want.

The fact that the Net has no single authority figure sets forth a problem about what kind of materials could be available on the Net. The U. S. government is now trying to pass bills to prevent misuse of the Net. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, which has already been discuss earlier, was introduced to the U. S. Congress. Under the Censorship Bill, a person breaks the law if he/she puts a purity test on a web page without making sure children cannot access the page. Also, if a person verbally assaults someone on IRC, he/she breaks the law.

If a university, where some students may be under 18 years old, carries the alt. sex. * newsgroups, which contains adult material, it breaks the law. According to George Melloan from the Wall Street Journal, a censorship bill was passed by the Senate 84-16 in July, and an anticensorship bill was passed by the House 420-4 in August. There are now four different sets of censorship and anticensorship language in the House and Senate versions of the Telecomm reform bill, which contradict each other and will have to be reconciled (Melloan, n. p. ).

In order to understand the need for the ever-growing body of legislation, it is important to explore the controversy, and the current problems involved with the Net as it exists must be introduced. The problem that concerns most people is offensive material such as pornography. As pointed out by Allison and Baxter, “Possible (offensive) topics are behavior (drugs, … ), nudity, political/economic/social opinion, violence, racial/ethnic, religious, coarse language, sexual/gender orientation, [and] sexuality” (Allison and Baxter 3). Since the Internet is open to everyone, children are very easily exposed to such material. According to

Allison and Baxter, “the information provided on the Internet, particularly through the WWW, ranges across train time-tables, university lecture notes, books, art exhibits, film promotions, the wisdom and ravings of individuals and, yes, pornographic pictures” (Allison and Baxter 3). Moreover, many high schools in the United States provide Internet access to students, which is very useful for looking up information, but if a student intends to look for inappropriate material, he/she is very likely to find such material simply by doing an Internet search. Another crucial Internet crime is the theft of credit card numbers.

Companies do business on the Net, and credit card numbers are stored on their servers; everyone with the necessary computer knowledge could hack in and obtain such databases for illegal purposes. To cite an instance, the most infamous computer terrorist, Kevin Mitnick, “waived extradition and is now in jail in California, charged with computer fraud and illegal use of a telephone access device. The list of allegations against him include theft of many files and documents, including twenty-thousand credit card numbers from Netcom On-Line Services, which provides thousands with access to the Internet” (Warren 52).

Americans ave to come up with a solution in order to keep children away from inappropriate material and to prevent misuses of the Net. One reaction to this inapplicability has been the “Censor the Net” approach (the censorship bill), which is being debated worldwide. First, the meaning of “Censoring the Net” must be explained. Simply, it is the banning of offensive material. To see if the government should censor the Net, it is imperative to list the advantages and disadvantages of the “censor the Net” approach.

The advantage of government censorship is that ideally, children and teenagers could be kept away from unsuitable material. However, many experts have pointed out that government censorship is not possible. Howard Rheingold, the editor of the Whole World Review, observes that, “the censor the Net’ approach is not just morally misguided. It’s becoming technically and politically impossible” (Rheingold n. p. ). First, it is not fair to exclude the freedom and damage the atmosphere of freely expressing ideas just for the safety of children.

Corn-Revere, an expert on Internet censorship at the Howgan & Harson Law Firm, points out that “the purpose of indecency regulation is to keep adult material from falling into the hands of kids. When he first ntroduced a similar bill last year, Senator Exon said he was concerned that the Information Superhighway was in danger of becoming an electronic red light district’ and that he wanted to bar his granddaughter’s access to unsuitable information” (Corn-Revere 24). It is clear that Senator Exon introduced the bill to prevent minors from viewing unsuitable material on the Net.

In addition, Meleedy, a computer science graduate student at Harvard University, questions that if “the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it? ” (Meleedy 1) Allison and Baxter assert hat, “the most significant new properties of the Internet media are the diversity of information sources and their ability to reach almost anywhere in the world. Authors range from major corporations such as IBM and Disney to school children” (Allison and Baxter 3).

As predicted by Corn-Revere, “At the very least, the law will force content providers to make access more difficult, which will affect all users, not just the young” (Corn-Revere 70). Censoring the Net is technically and politically impossible; it will damage the atmosphere of freedom and free idea expression on the Net; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States.

According to Corn-Reverse, “it has been suggested that, on-line systems give people far more genuinely free speech and free press than ever before in human history'” (Corn-Reverse 71). Rheingold predicts that “Heavy-handed attempts to impose restrictions on the unruly but incredibly creative anarchy of the Net could kill the spirit of cooperative knowledge-sharing that makes the Net valuable to millions” (Rheingold n. p. ). The freedom of idea expression is what makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be waived for any reason.

Additionally, only a very small portion of the Net contains offensive material, most people do not use the Net for pornography. Caragata from Maclean’s magazine observes that, “it is pornography that stirs the most controversy. But while there is no doubt that pornography is popular, it amounts to a trickle compared with everything else available on the Net” (Caragata 51). The Net is mostly being used for communication and information exchange, and only a tiny portion of the Net contains pornography and other offensive material.

“Inevitably, being an uncontrolled system, means that the Internet will be subjected to subversive applications of some unscrupulous users. ” (Kershaw) The concept of the Internet was created in answer to a strategic problem faced by the United States government during the Cold war era. A nuclear attack would easily disrupt a traditional computer network and hence make communication impossible. The solution was found in a new type of network. A network where all nodes would be equal in status, that is to say each could send and receive messages.

The resulting projects were the first steps towards the birth of the Internet, as we know it. Today, the Internet consists of several parts, which include the World Wide Web, FTP, IRC, News groups, Gopher, WAIS, Archie, and Email. The Internet is continuing to grow at a rate of 40% a year, with roughly 20 million users to date. Over the past few years, the issue of Internet censorship has been subject to an unprecedented amount of controversy. Both sides of the debate present very strong arguments about why the Internet should or should not be censored.

The point most often brought forward by advocates of Internet censorship is that “inappropriate” material can all too easily land in the hands of children via this powerful new medium. “Inappropriate” mostly describes the sexually explicit and racist material that is easily found on the Internet. The debate that currently rages however centres mainly on pornographic material. The essay is divided into three content-based sections. The first section examines the data that is available about pornography on the Internet. Conclusions on significance of the data are offered.

Section two examines the legal issues and difficulties surrounding the idea of censorship. The final section discusses alternative ways of protecting children from pornography and offers a final conclusion on the attributes of the problem and the suggestion of a solution. Censorship of Internet is a big issue and not much of it can be covered in an essay at this level. The essay deliberately focuses only on pornography. While many aspects had to be left out and others discussed minimally, the result of this essay remains a brief synopsis of relevant issues and conclusions on these issues.

Section 1 In early 1995, a research team at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania released one of the most revealing studies into online pornography. The value of study, titled “Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway” is realised mainly due to its massive sample size. There are several issues about pornography on the Internet that were highlighted by the study. The research team surveyed 917,410 “sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, short stories and film clips”. Of special interest were Usenet newsgroups, which are basically electronic forums.

It was found that 83. percent of the digitised images stored on these newsgroups were pornographic pictures. This finding indicates that there clearly is a substantial amount of pornography on the net. This however does not necessarily indicate that this material is easy to find. To come to a conclusion, this student conducted several experiments using the on-line “Altavista” search engine. The key searchword “sex” was entered. 616,156 links were returned. Out of the first 20 entries listed on the first page only 2 links were to pornographic sites. The search keyword “tits” however, returned 69,920 links.

Out of the first 20 links listed on the first page 17 were to pornographic websites or bulletin boards. Amidst all these links was one that led to a French children’s pen-pal club called “Les P’tits Garnements. After reviewing the posted messages and photographs on one of the bulletin boards that showed up as a link, it was apparent that the purpose of the site was purely for exchange of child pornography. It is most likely that a minor would come across explicit areas of the Internet through search engines. Children are very likely to search using traditionally rude four-letter words more as a source of childish amusement than anything else.

There can be no argument that the resulting links do not justify the level of parental anxiety that we are witnessing today. Explicit sexual material on the Internet is not the result of an unfounded moral panic. Anyone that takes the time to conduct a few experiments as detailed above will realise that this is a most serious issue. The survey also determined that 71 percent of the sexual images on the newsgroups surveyed originate from adult-oriented computer bulletin-board systems (BBS) whose operators are trying to lure customers to their private collections of X-rated material.

There are thousands of these BBS services, which charge fees (typically $10 to $30 a month) and take credit cards; the five largest have annual revenues in excess of $1 million. This finding is a valuable one. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, explicit material is not being circulated by “perverted socially reclusive computer nerds”. This is a commercial activity. As long as people are willing to pay for it, it will be supplied. This is not a new problem that society faces. Prostitution and drug trading are other older facets of this same concept. The Internet has simply brought a new face of the same issue.

Perhaps the most disturbing discovery of the Carnegie Mellon study is one that relates to the changing face of pornography. It is no longer “just naked women”. There is great demand and inevitably great supply of “pedophilia” (nude photos of children), “hebephilia” (youths) and what the researchers call “paraphilia” (“a grab bag of deviant material that includes images of bondage, sadomasochism, urination, defecation, and sex acts with a barnyard full of animals”). Anti-censorship activists often argue that censoring the net “makes no difference” because “obscene” material is available from any old corner shop.

These newer “types” of pornography may actually render this argument obsolete. Children are certainly exposed to material that even the most adventurous of them would not have normally come across. Section 2 Most societies like to think of themselves as at least doing something to limit the development of “problems” such as pornography on the Internet. Governments of the United Kingdom and United States have both taken legislative steps towards this effect. It has not been easy in either case and the outcomes have arguably been altogether unsatisfactory.

United Kingdom legislation includes several statutes that are of particular interest. Section 1(1) of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act provides the following test for obscenity: “For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

This definition of “obscene” stems from the opinion of Lord Cockburn concerning the case Regina v. Hicklin (1868), enunciated the first important guide in determining what material was obscene. It is open to serious criticism. The fundamental problem with this definition is that it can condemn material that may legitimately dealt with sex. Section 43 of the Telecommunications 1984 Act makes it an offence to send by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’ and is an imprisonable offence with a maximum term of six months.

When carefully scrutinised it is clear that the Act itself does not penalise the act of procuring a message to be sent. As usual, there are loopholes abound. When a telecommunication system located outside the jurisdiction is used to send obscene materials into the country, no offence has been committed. The 1984 Act will also not apply to cases where the data is transmitted by using a local area network unless part of the transmission is routed through a public telecommunications system.

Even though UK legislation has recently been amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994′), in order to keep up with technological changes, there are still wrinkles in its enforcement with respect to the Internet. United State legislation has gone through many different tests of “obscenity” for reasons too many and varied to be discussed here. The current definition of obscenity is based on several conditions as opposed to a single one. On June 14, 1995, the Senate debated and voted on Title IV of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 (S. 652).

Also known as the Communications Decency Act of 1995, it proposed to amend Section 223 (47 U. S. C. 223) to read: “Whoever, by means of telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person,” will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both. ” There are two immediately obvious reasons why the CDA was doomed to fail.

Firstly, it may have severely restricted the flow of information and free speech. In its online analysis the “Electronic Frontier Foundation” (EFF), stated: “[T]he legislation not only fails to solve the problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content restrictions on computer communications that would chill First Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in the public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only such content as is suitable for children. ” A second problem was the uncompromising nature of the bill.

A particular example would perhaps best illustrate this point. An online appeal from an organisation called Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) stated the following: “This proposed law could mean the demise of the Seattle Community Network (SCN), a 6,500-member free, public access computer network established to benefit the public. Under the proposed legislation, if an individual member of the SCN posted a message on an SCN forum or from SCN that was later deemed to be “indecent,” SCN could be fined $100,000, and SCN’s board of Directors and staff could face two-year prison sentences.

Yet without community networks like SCN, the Internet would be out of reach to millions of citizens. ” It is easy to admire the ideals that the CDA stands for. The Senate approved the Act with a vote of 84-16. The approach of the legislation however, is much too naive. In June of 1997 the CDA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it “violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression”. The general problem with legislation with respect to the Internet is the fact that regulation laws have for so long been focused on traditional media channels such as radio and television.

The Internet is new and extreme form of media. It is thus incompatible with existing laws. New and equally extreme laws would be necessary to regulate the Internet. However, as experience with the CDA has shown, extreme laws are not very popular and are likely to be contested and overthrown. Section 3 Even the most zealous censorship advocate would be blind not to realise that a world-wide censorship programme would be futile. National laws and community standards vary from nation to nation and even between regions of the same country.

It would be virtually impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to a single censorship act. Thus, the Internet, in its entirety, can never truly be censored. Even if the politics of it could be appeased, there are too many sources of pornography. Even the most ambitious regulatory agency could not hope to control them all. So the question of how to keep pornography away from children still remains. Following the 1996 period of extensive controversy over pornography on the Internet, many sexually explicit websites introduced password protection schemes.

Before being allowed access to the site a password is required. To obtain a password a user must subscribe to company such as “Adultcheck”. Online credit card payment is required before passwords are dispensed, the idea being that minors will not have access to credit cards. It seems like an attractive solution. Legislation could be used to compel the pornography industry to self-regulate itself in order to safeguard their substantial profits. There are two reasons however, why this would be an incomplete solution.

Firstly, many websites would be out of the jurisdiction of the legislation and thus free to operate without password schemes. There would probably even be a significant number of renegade sites that would ignore legislation and get away with it. Secondly, many people simply give away their passwords on bulletin boards, which defeats the whole purpose of the scheme. The solution that parents and educators are currently turning to most is the censor software approach. Censor or filtering software works by denying access to “objectionable” websites on the Internet. There are two main reasons why this approach is at most inadequate.

The first drawback relates to technological imperfections and was well highlighted in a study titled “Faulty filters”, released by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in November 1997. The study involved the conducting of up to 100 searches using a normal search engine and then the conducting of the same searches via one of the new search engine that claim to return only “family-friendly” links. It was found that the search engine “typically blocked access to 95-99 percent of the material available on the Internet that might be of interest to young people”.

The study also noted that even when strict “blocking criteria were used links to “objectionable” material still showed up. The conclusion of the study seriously questioned the filtering software approach to Internet censorship on the basis of its potential to “ultimately diminish the educational value of the Internet”. The study is not optimistic about any improved performance of filtering software with the passage of time. The second drawback is concerned with a much more sinister aspect of censor software. In the February 1998 edition of “. net. ” magazine; an article about filtering software presented some disturbing facts.

The article revealed that that Solid Oaks’ CYBERsitter, a popular filtering program, actually blocked sites of groups such as “The National Organisation for Women” and “The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation”. An even more worrying revelation was that among the list of words and phrases that were to be blocked by the program were the phrases “dontbuycybercitter” and “bennethasleton” the name of an 18 year old anti-censorship activist. This implies that there are serious political and commercial agendas behind the facade of “censorship”. This may perhaps be the general problem with censorship.

It tries to promote a particular rigid set of morals and values on everybody concerned and at times is abused in order to advance other hidden agendas. Whatever the solution to the problem of pornography on the Internet it is unlikely to have anything to do with technically unsophisticated software that considers “gay rights” to be an objectionable topic. In August 1995, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a twenty-two company consortium gathered under the held a conference discuss the need to create self-imposed ratings systems which would allow parents to control what children are allowed to see on the Internet.

The result of the group’s work, to date, is the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS is similar to the V-chip technology that was suggested for shielding children from sex and violence on television. In this case websites voluntarily “label” their content. What this technology may mean for parents is the ability to specify viewing levels for their children according to what they feel their children should be exposed to. Intuition suggests that a complete censorship program would be practically impossible.

There are too many obstacles including the inability of current legislation to deal with the unique nature of the Internet without resorting to extreme and unpopular measures. The Internet, to be utilised to its full value, simply must remain as it is. Protection of minors from “obscene” material must be a sort of add-on. Filtering software is an attractive concept, but as discussed above, has enough shortcomings to make it a questionable approach. The only hope lies in the advancement of technology.

The MIT consortium and their work with PICS illustrates the kind of solution that would be most ideal. PICS is simply a technical standard that will supposedly allow concerned parents and educators to tighten their control over what children can see on the Internet. Unlike filtering software, it does not impose any scheme of values on its user population or advance any hidden agendas. Hopefully, with the advancement of fifth generation computers and artificial intelligence schemes such as this will eventually approach minimal defect.

The question that will then remain will be a much more of a human one. Technology can never really replace parental guidance. Children absorb sexually explicit material because of their basic curiosity, which stems from inexperience in the ways of the world. Parents and educators must recognise their duty to nurture the growth of children and encourage broad-minded yet ethically aware mental development. Only then will society be facing up to its basic problems as opposed to merely trying to diminish their effects.

The Internet is a wonderful place of entertainment and education but like all places used by millions of people, it has some murky corners people would prefer children not to explore. In the physical world society as a whole conspires to protect children, but there are no social or physical constraints to Internet surfing. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, also known as the Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act, has been introduced in the U. S. Congress.

It would make it a criminal offense to make available to children anything that is indecent, or to send anything indecent with “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” (“Stop the Communications … ” n. p. ). The goal of this bill as written (though not as stated by its proponents) is to try to make all public discourse on the Internet suitable for young children. The issue of whether is it necessary to have censorship on the Internet is being argued all over the world. There are numerous homepages on the World Wide Web discussing this issue, or asking people to sign the petition to stop government censorship.

The Internet was originally a place for people to freely express their ideas worldwide. It is also one of America’s most valuable types of technology; scientists use email for quick and easy communication. They post their current scientific discoveries on the Usenet newsgroups so other scientists in the same field of study all over the world can know in minutes. Ordinary people use the Net for communication, expressing their opinions in the newsgroups, obtaining up-to-date information from the WWW, acquiring files by using FTP, etc.

Censorship would damage the atmosphere of the freedom to express ideas on the Internet; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. In the Internet community, there is a large volume of technical terms. For this reason, it is first necessary to examine the terminology specific to Internet. The Internet is a world wide computer network. The “Net” is frequently used in place of Internet. In the words of Allison and Baxter, two experts on Internet Censorship at the Monash University, “the Internet is comprised of various digital media subsuming many of the distinct roles of traditional media” (Allison and Baxter 3).

Electronic mail (email), which is one component of the Internet, approximates person to person letters, memoranda, notes and even phone calls. Sound and pictures are sometimes sent along with text. Email is mainly for private communication. Electronic mailing lists are rather like club newsletters and readers have to contract-in or subscribe to a list. Another term that is often used is electronic news (enews/Usenet), enews is a broadcast, free to the Internet medium. It has some properties of radio or television, particularly talk-back radio or television, in that the destination is indiscriminate. The term FTP is also frequently used.

File transfer protocol (FTP) started as an Internet archival and retrieval medium, somewhat analogous to traditional libraries. Files can be retrieved from distant computers using a traditional text-based interface. The world-wide web (WWW), which is another component of the Net, can be used to “publish” material that would traditionally appear in journals, magazines, posters, books, television and even on film. The term UNIX, “a widely heard computer term, is a multi-user, multitasking operating system originally developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, at AT&T Bell Laboratories, in 1969 for use on minicomputers” (“UNIX” n. ).

To understand the background of the controversy, it is also necessary to give a brief history on the Internet. The Internet was created about twenty years ago in an attempt to connect a U. S. Defense Department network called the ARPAnet and various other radio and satellite networks. The ARPAnet was an experimental network designed to support military research; in particular, research about how to build networks that could withstand partial outages (such as bomb attacks) and still function.

At about the same time the Internet was coming into being, Ethernet local area networks (“LANs”) were developed. Most of these workstations came with Berkeley UNIX, which included IP (Internet Protocol) networking software. This created a new demand: rather than connecting to a single large timesharing computer per site, organizations wanted to connect the ARPAnet to their entire local network. The demand keeps growing today. Now that most four-year colleges are connected to the Net, people are trying to get secondary and primary schools connected.

People who have graduated from college where they have used the resources of the Net in classes, know what the Internet is good for, and talk their employers into connecting different corporations. All this activity points to continued growth, networking problems to solve, evolving technologies, and job security for networkers (Willmott 107). The Internet can also be compared to a church. In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and they can either take part or not.

It’s the choice of the user. The Internet has no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The constituent networks may have presidents and CEO’s, but that’s a different issue; there is no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole. As stated by Frances Hentoff, the staff writer for The Village Voice and the author of First Freedoms, “on an info superhighway driven by individuals, there are no cops preventing users from downloading” (Hentoff 1). Internet users can broadcast or express anything they want.

The fact that the Net has no single authority figure sets forth a problem about what kind of materials could be available on the Net. The U. S. government is now trying to pass bills to prevent misuse of the Net. The Internet Censorship Bill of 1995, which has already been discuss earlier, was introduced to the U. S. Congress. Under the Censorship Bill, a person breaks the law if he/she puts a purity test on a web page without making sure children cannot access the page. Also, if a person verbally assaults someone on IRC, he/she breaks the law.

If a university, where some students may be under 18 years old, carries the alt. sex. * newsgroups, which contains adult material, it breaks the law. According to George Melloan from the Wall Street Journal, a censorship bill was passed by the Senate 84-16 in July, and an anticensorship bill was passed by the House 420-4 in August. There are now four different sets of censorship and anticensorship language in the House and Senate versions of the Telecomm reform bill, which contradict each other and will have to be reconciled (Melloan, n. p. ).

In order to understand the need for the ever-growing body of legislation, it is important to explore the controversy, and the current problems involved with the Net as it exists must be introduced. The problem that concerns most people is offensive material such as pornography. As pointed out by Allison and Baxter, “Possible (offensive) topics are behavior (drugs, … ), nudity, political/economic/social opinion, violence, racial/ethnic, religious, coarse language, sexual/gender orientation, [and] sexuality” (Allison and Baxter 3). Since the Internet is open to everyone, children are very easily exposed to such material.

According to Allison and Baxter, “the information provided on the Internet, particularly through the WWW, ranges across train time-tables, university lecture notes, books, art exhibits, film promotions, the wisdom and ravings of individuals and, yes, pornographic pictures” (Allison and Baxter 3). Moreover, many high schools in the United States provide Internet access to students, which is very useful for looking up information, but if a student intends to look for inappropriate material, he/she is very likely to find such material simply by doing an Internet search. Another crucial Internet crime is the theft of credit card numbers.

Companies do business on the Net, and credit card numbers are stored on their servers; everyone with the necessary computer knowledge could hack in and obtain such databases for illegal purposes. To cite an instance, the most infamous computer terrorist, Kevin Mitnick, “waived extradition and is now in jail in California, charged with computer fraud and illegal use of a telephone access device. The list of allegations against him include theft of many files and documents, including twenty-thousand credit card numbers from Netcom On-Line Services, which provides thousands with access to the Internet” (Warren 52).

Americans have to come up with a solution in order to keep children away from inappropriate material and to prevent misuses of the Net. One reaction to this inapplicability has been the “Censor the Net” approach (the censorship bill), which is being debated worldwide. First, the meaning of “Censoring the Net” must be explained. Simply, it is the banning of offensive material. To see if the government should censor the Net, it is imperative to list the advantages and disadvantages of the “censor the Net” approach.

The advantage of government censorship is that ideally, children and teenagers could be kept away from unsuitable material. However, many experts have pointed out that government censorship is not possible. Howard Rheingold, the editor of the Whole World Review, observes that, “the ‘censor the Net’ approach is not just morally misguided. It’s becoming technically and politically impossible” (Rheingold n. p. ). First, it is not fair to exclude the freedom and damage the atmosphere of freely expressing ideas just for the safety of children.

Corn-Revere, an expert on Internet censorship at the Howgan & Harson Law Firm, points out that “the purpose of indecency regulation is to keep adult material from falling into the hands of kids. When he first introduced a similar bill last year, Senator Exon said he was concerned that the Information Superhighway was in danger of becoming an electronic ‘red light district’ and that he wanted to bar his granddaughter’s access to unsuitable information”(Corn-Revere 24). It is clear that Senator Exon introduced the bill to prevent minors from viewing unsuitable material on the Net.

In addition, Meleedy, a computer science graduate student at Harvard University, questions that if “the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it? ” (Meleedy 1) Allison and Baxter assert that, “the most significant new properties of the Internet media are the diversity of information sources and their ability to reach almost anywhere in the world. Authors range from major corporations such as IBM and Disney to school children” (Allison and Baxter 3).

As predicted by Corn-Revere, “At the very least, the law will force content providers to make access more difficult, which will affect all users, not just the young” (Corn-Revere 70). Censoring the Net is technically and politically impossible; it will damage the atmosphere of freedom and free idea expression on the Net; therefore, government should not encourage censorship. Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States.

According to Corn-Reverse, “it has been suggested that, ‘on-line systems give people far more genuinely free speech and free press than ever before in human history'” (Corn-Reverse 71). Rheingold predicts that “Heavy-handed attempts to impose restrictions on the unruly but incredibly creative anarchy of the Net could kill the spirit of cooperative knowledge-sharing that makes the Net valuable to millions” (Rheingold n. p. ). The freedom of idea expression is what makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be waived for any reason.

Additionally, only a very small portion of the Net contains offensive material, most people do not use the Net for pornography. Caragata from Maclean’s magazine observes that, “it is pornography that stirs the most controversy. But while there is no doubt that pornography is popular, it amounts to a trickle compared with everything else available on the Net” (Caragata 51). The Net is mostly being used for communication and information exchange, and only a tiny portion of the Net contains pornography and other offensive material.

It must be understood that censoring the Net is technically impossible. According to Allison and Baxter, “in principle, it is impossible to monitor all material being transmitted on the Internet. Considering the difficulties with international boundaries, a licensing system faces many obvious practical hurdles” (Allison and Baxter 6). As described by Allison and Baxter, “Any good Computer Science graduate can create a completely secure encryption system for concealment purposes. The material can even be disguised, for example hidden ‘inside’ a perfectly innocuous picture” (Allison and Baxter 6).

Therefore, if a person wants to publish offensive material, he/she can design a formula to change the material with respect to a key, and secretly tell other users what the key is. In this way, they can retrieve the same material and pass through the government censorship. While people are concerned about Internet pornography, it should be recognized that pornography is sometimes legal; for example, pornography is legal in video and magazines. Therefore, it is inconsistent to ban the Internet equivalents. According to Rheingold, “Citizens should have the right to restrict the information-flow into their homes.

They should be able to exclude from their home any subject matter that they do not want their children to see. But sooner or later, their children will be exposed to everything from which they have shielded them , and then they will have left to deal with these shocking sights and sound in the moral fiber they helped them cultivate” (Rheingold n. p. ). The Internet is definitely not the only medium for teenagers to find inappropriate material. Even if the Net does not have any, teenagers could also be exposed to indecorous material in many other places.

For example, Allison and Baxter say that, “most authors using electronic media do not produce material that is any ‘worse’ than that available from news agents, video shops, or mail-order sources” (Allison and Baxter 8). On that account, if the purpose of censoring is to prevent minors from being exposed to indecorous material, not only the Net has to be censored. Censoring the Net will only eliminate one single medium for minors to find irrelevant material. Government censorship is not the solution to the problem, and alternatives measures that have same effects as censorship can be practiced.

The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues. 10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.

Through all the components of the Internet it becomes easy to transfer material that particular governments might find objectionable. However, all of these means of communicating on the Internet make up a large and vast system. For inspectors to monitor every e-mail, every article in every Newsgroup, every Webpage, every IRC channel, every Gopher site and every FTP site would be near impossible.

Besides taking an ext raordinary amount of money and time, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech rights that are included in democratic constitutions and international laws. It would be a breach of the First Amendment. The Constitution of the United Stat es of America declares that 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redr ess of grievances 12 Therefore it would be unconstitutional for any sort of censorship to occur on the Internet and affiliated services.

Despite the illegality, restrictions on Internet access and content are increasing worldwide under all forms of government. In France, a co untry where the press generally has a large amount of freedom, the Internet has recently been in the spotlight. A banned book on the health history of former French president Francois Mitterrand was republished electronically on the World Wide Web (WWW). Apparently, the electronic reproduction of Le Grand Secret by a third party wasn’t banned by a court that ruled that the printed version of the book unlawfully violated Mitterrand’s privacy.

To enforce censorship of the Internet, free societies find that they become more repressive and closed societies find new ways to crush political expression and opposition. 13 Vice – President Al Gore, while at an international conference in Brussels about the Internet, in a keynote address said that [Cyberspace] is about protecting and enlarging freedom of expression for all our citizens … Ideas should not be checked at the border. 14 Another person attending that conference was Ann Breeson of the Ame rican Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to preserving many things including free speech.

She is quoted as saying, Our big victory at Brussels was that we pressured them enough so that Al Gore in his keynote address made a big point of stre ssing the importance of free speech on the Internet. 15 Many other organizations have fought against laws and have succeeded. A prime example of this is the fight that various groups put on against the recent Communication Decency Act (CDA) of the U. S. Se nate. The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition on 26 February 1996 filed a historic lawsuit in Philadelphia against the U. S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Janet Reno to make certain that the First Amendment of the U. S. A. would not be compr omised by the CDA.

The sheer range of plaintiffs alone, including the American Booksellers Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, Apple, Microsoft, America Online, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Commercial Internet eXchange Association , Wired, and HotWired, as well as thousands of netizens (citizens of the Internet) shows the dedication that is felt by many different people and groups to the cause of free speech on the Internet. 16 Words like *censored*, *censored*, piss, and tits.

Words of which our mothers (at least some of them) would no doubt disapprove, but which by no means should be regulated by the government. But it’s not just about dirty words. It’s also about words like AIDS, gay, a nd breasts. It’s about sexual content, and politically controversial topics like drug addiction, euthanasia, and racism. 17 Just recently in France, a high court has struck down a bill that promoted the censorship of the Internet. Other countries have attempted similar moves. The Internet cannot be regulated in the way of other mediums simply because it is not the same as anyt hing else that we have.

It is a totally new and unique form of communication and deserves to be given a chance to prove itself. Laws of one country can not hold jurisdiction in another country and holds true on the Internet because it has no borders. Although North America (mainly the United States) has the largest share of servers, the Internet is still a worldwide network. This means that domestic regulations cannot oversee the rules of foreign countries. It would be just as easy for an American te en to download (receive) pornographic material from England, as it would be from down the street.

One of the major problems is the lack of physical boundaries, making it difficult to determine where violations of the law should be prosecuted. There is no one place through which all information passes through. That was one of the key points that was stressed during the original days of the Internet, then called ARPANET. It started out as a defense project that would allow communication in the event of an e mergency such as nuclear attack. Without a central authority, information would pass around until it got where it was going. 18 This was intended to be similar to the road system.

It is not necessary to take any specific route but rather anyone goes. In th e same way the information on the Internet starts out and eventually gets to it’s destination. The Internet is full of anonymity. Since text is the standard form of communication on the Internet it becomes difficult to determine the identity and/or age of a specific person. Nothing is known for certain about a person accessing content. There are no signatures or photo-ids on the Internet therefore it is difficult to certify that illegal activities (regarding minors accessing restricted data) are taking place.

Take for example a conversation on IRC. Two people could people talking to one another, bu t all that they see is text. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the gender and/or age just from communication of this sort. Then if the conversationalist lies about any points mentioned above it would be extremely difficult t o know or prove otherwise. In this way governments could not restrict access to certain sites on the basis of ages.

A thirteen-year-old boy in British Columbia could decide that he wanted to download pornography from an adult site in the U. S. The site may have warnings and age restrictions but they have no way of stopping him from receiving their material if he says he is 19 years of age when prompted. The complexity in the way information is passed around the Internet means that if information has been posted, deleting this material becomes almost impossible. A good example of this is the junk mail that people refer to as spam. These include e-mails ad vertising products, usenet articles that are open for flames. Flames are heated letters that many times have no founding behind them.

These seem to float around for ages before dying out because they are perfect material for flamewars. Flamewars are long, drawn out and highly heated discussions consisting of flames, which often time, obscenely, slander one’s reputation and personae. Mostly these are immature arguments that are totally pointless except to those involved. The millions of people that partici pate on the Internet everyday have access to almost all of the data present. As well it becomes easy to copy something that exists on the Internet with only a click of a button.

The relative ease of copying data means that the second information is posted to the Internet it may be archived somewhere else. There are in fact many sites on the Internet that are devoted to the archiving of information including: ftp. cdrom. com (which archives an extraordinary amount of software among others), www. archive. org ( which is working towards archiving as much of the WWW as possible), and wuarchive. wustl. edu (which is dedicated towards archiving software, publications, and many other types of data). It becomes hard to censor material that might be duplicated or triplic ated within a matter of minutes.

An example could be the recent hacking of the U. S. Department of Justice’s Homepage and the hacking of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Homepage. Someone illegally obtained access to the computer on which these homepages were stored and modified them. It was done as a prank; however, both of these agencies have since shut down their pages. 2600 (www. 2600. com), a magazine devoted to hacking, has republished the hacked DoJ and CIA homepages on their website. The magazine ei ther copied the data straight from the hacked sites or the hacked site was submitted to the magazine.

I don’t know which one is true but it does show the ease that data can be copied and distributed, as well it shows the difficulty in preventing material deemed inappropriate from appearing where it shouldn’t. The Internet is much too complex a network for censorship to effectively occur. It is a totally new and unique environment in which communications transpire. Existing laws are not applicable to this medium. The lack of tangible boundaries causes confusion as to where violations of law take place. The Internet is made up of nameless interaction and anonymous communication.

It has been two-hundred and nine years since the Bill of Rights was ratified. I doubt that our Founding Fathers ever imagined the changes that would come over our country. Although the Constitution has held up through the years, it cannot be argued that in the last fifty years especially, issues come up daily that seem to test the strength and integrity of our sacred Constitution. The Internet, for example, has caused more controversy than anything we have ever seen.

The biggest issue: Censorship. For a number of different reasons, government and other organizations are trying to take our First Amendment right from us by censoring the Internet, but it is up to us to become educated and decide for ourselves if it is helping or hurting. There are many reasons for the Internet not to be censored. First, it truly is unconstitutional. The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. As far as I’m concerned, this is abridging freedom of speech and press.

Although pornography and obscenity are technically not protected by the First Amendment, it becomes a question of, how far will the government go? When do they stop censoring, and how do they decide what is obscene? “The equation is simple: Those who have power get to censor, and those who lack power get silenced. If you find yourself in a position to demand and get censorship, you can be sure you are among those who have the power, and you are acting to oppress others. ” (Avedon Carol: BM FAC, Ph: (0181)552-4405)

Another reason against censorship is that the Internet is a responsibility. Although a large percentage of the material on the Internet may be harmful and inappropriate, adults should be able to decide what they are exposed to, and parents have the responsibility to regulate what their children are exposed to. Many parents argue that they cannot be with their children all of the time, and that often pornographic sites come up accidentally. There is a simple solution to this. A number of Internet software can be bought for a reasonable price to filter Internet sites.

To name a few: Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS), CYBERsitter FTP archive, NetNanny and Web ratings council. (http://www1. tpgi. com. au) They all use a different filtration system, but all are very effective to individual regulation levels. Lastly, censoring the Internet will only be the beginning of more government interference in the people’s lives. Those for censorship of the Internet in Congress argue that it is for children’s safety as well as others who are offended by certain material.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (http://www. theroc. org) and he was absolutely right. Censoring the Internet does not make us safe. If we censored everything that offended someone on the internet, I’m sure there would be little left of this great tool we call the World Wide Web-and that, would be a shame. Currently, there are many laws being written for censorship, and attempted to pass through Congress. It is the responsibility of the people to vote against these laws.

They will only hurt our freedoms, starting now and continuing throughout the future. We, the people of the United States of America, are very lucky to live in this free country. People must remember that the government is not there only to protect us, but to represent the voice of the people. If politicians continue to please those who outspokenly voice censorship, our freedoms will slowly dwindle, and freedom is what our country is based on. It is YOUR business what you do on the Internet, so let’s keep it that way.