My Feelings on Internet Censorship

Barbara Nesbitt of Austin, Texas sums up the feelings of many opposers of Internet Censorship well with the quote, “I’m a 62-year-old woman who’s been a conservative, a liberal, a moderate, and everything else. And I don’t think anybody has the right to tell anybody else what to do” (Kennedy 5).  Barbara is a nurse-turned-editor who is opposed to censorship like the new act called the Child Online Protection Act, because she feels that it would censor content that is useful to the American public.  But other people believe that censorship is necessary, and without it children can be exposed to corrupt material.  The struggle to gain control of the Internet, or the lack thereof, is beginning. I, for one, am strongly apposed to government intervention in the management of the Internet, and  J. James Exon, Stewart Dalzell, Cathleen Cleaver, and Julia Wilkins are authors that have interesting things to say about this topic as well.

A number of writers believe that censorship of the Internet is a good thing. What’s the big deal with the Internet, anyway? In summary, the big deal is that the World Wide Web is part of an information revolution. J. James Exon stated that, “This information revolution may rival the invention of the printing press and broadcasting in terms of how it will affect our daily lives” (Exon 436).  Anything can be found on it. Information on science, recreation, entertainment, sports, you name it. Anything can be found on it, including sex.  Pornographic websites have a huge market on the Internet and rake in tons of money each day from subscribers.  On a hardcore website you may find as much as you would in the neighborhood adult bookstore and more. The Internet is interactive, so message boards and chat rooms are likely to be available on these sites.  The problem, according to Exon, is that this material is not suitable for children, and kids are the ones who have the most knowledge when it comes to computers and the Internet these days (Exon 437).  What to do about this problem is the question, and everyone seems to have a different answer. 

Those in favor of Internet censorship believe that this adult material is too easy for young people to come by. Porn sent to minors in e-mails, easily accessible hardcore sites, and pedophiles looking for young victims are all concerns of those wanting to censor the Internet.  Cathleen Cleaver addresses the concern of the effects that unrestricted porn would have on society as well as the reality of Internet pedophiles. She states that, “We’ve got to start considering what kind of society we’ll have when the next generation learns about human sexuality from what the Internet teachers” (Cleaver 456). She goes on to mention that unfortunately the Internet does not teach little girls much about themselves and their worth, considering how exploited women are on the Web. 

Pedophilia is a main point for those supporting censorship.  Cleaver describes a scenario that most parents would find frightening. A pedophile disguised as a little girl develops an online relationship with your child through email, and although you stop the situation before it goes too far, the police can do nothing because “child-stalking laws don’t apply to the Internet” (453).

Another concern with those that are pro-censorship is the First Amendment. The First Amendment certifies that everyone has the right to engage in free speech.  Stewart Dalzell, author of “American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno” wrote about the Communications Decency Act of 1996.  The act was the ultimate way to censor the Internet, labeling any transfer of pornographic, indecent, or obscene material an actual crime.  “It was attached to the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, which was then passed by congress on February, 1996” (Wilkins 447) and then signed into a law by President Clinton. The maximum fine for transmitting this material was up to $100,000 and the jail sentence went from six months to two years. 

Although Dalzell found the CDA unconstitutional, as did Congress in 1996, he stated, “No Internet speaker has the right to engage in these forms of speech [pornographic, indecent, obscene material], and no Internet listener has a right to receive them” (Dalzell 438).  J. James Exon, author of “Keeping the Internet Safe for our Families” agrees with Dalzell on this point.  He too believes that the Constitution was not founded to protect pedophiles and pornographers (Exon 436).  In fact, Exon actually sponsored the CDA. He thinks that Internet censorship is a must, and makes the analogy that just as we have laws against dumping garbage on the highway, we should have similar laws for the information superhighway. Along with other supporters of censorship, Exon believes that something must be done quickly. “We are talking about our most important and precious commodity—our children” (Exon 437). 

            The other side of this debate lies in the hands of those who think that censorship is unconstitutional.  Julia Wilkins, thinks that although pornography is available on the Internet, citizens are in a moral panic about it. Errors in reporting, such as the Time article that had heinous errors regarding the amount of pornographic images on the Web, sent the American public into an uproar.  After the exaggerated article was printed, which stated that 83.5 percent of graphics on the Internet were pornographic, the actual number being  actual less than one percent, triggered the senate to grab hold of the study which triggered the forming of the CDA and began the so-called moral panic. 

            Wilkins believes that although the purpose of the CDA was honorable, as she does feel that pornography on the Internet is a threat, the act was “so broad and poorly defined that it could have deprived many adults of information they needed in areas of health, art, news, and literature—information that is legal in print form” (Wilkins 447).  Opposers of censorship believe that it is wrong to keep adults from viewing valuable information just because children have access to it, not to mention that they are a minority on the information superhighway.   (cite)

             Wilkins explored a study done by Lisa Smeiser, who researched online pornography and tried to find some herself.  Besides the major porn sites that asked for a credit card, Smeiser concluded that despite what the media says, hardcore pornography is not readily available and to find large quantities of this without a credit card one would have to do some major searching (Wilkins 449). Shmeiser stated that although there is pornography on the Web, children are not getting it by accident.  They are looking for it, circumventing passwords, and more just to find the indecent material.  Overall, Lisa concludes that Internet porn is not readily available despite popular belief.

I believe that censorship in general is wrong, and the Internet is no exception. I do not believe that the government should censor the Web in any way, shape, or form. Although children and pedophiles are major concerns, it is apparent that the First Amendment is being pushed aside.

Dalzell writes, “The Government, therefore, implicitly asks this court to limit both the amount of speech on the Internet and the availabity of that speech. This argument is profoundly repugnant to first amendment principles…” (Dalzell 442).  Limit speech? No way! The first amendment guarantees free speech, and the Government is trying to limit that with censorship because they think that there is too much of this speech and that it is too available in this medium. This is absurd. 

            J. James Exon, founder of the CDA, said, “But there are some dark side roads on the information superhighway that contain material that would be considered unacceptable by any reasonable standard” (Exon 435).  Nevertheless, as there are “dark side roads” on the Internet, there are dark roads throughout life no matter where you go. In my opinion, it is up to the guardians of our “precious children” to protect them against these evils.  If you don’t want your child to see pornographic material or chat with strangers, get a filtering device and install it.  If you don’t want your child to go on the Internet by any means, unplug the computer.  But most of all, teach your child values. The computer isn’t a babysitter, and there is indecent material on it just as there is on TV and in print. 

            There are many practical ways to filter out indecent material on your home computer.  By doing an Internet search on a search engine called “Yahoo!” I found 103 results when I typed in “Internet Filtering”.  Products such as Bascom Global Internet Services, Cyber Patrol, Rulespace, and Net Nanny all filter out inappropriate sites and subject matter.  Some are costly, but on the other hand some are free. There are many things that a parent can do to keep their children safe from Internet smut, one of them being filtering. But complete government censorship of the net will not accomplish this.

            The American public, as Julia Wilkins stated, is in a “moral panic” and I believe is using the evils of the Internet as a scapegoat in order to “protect the children”. After reading an article like the exaggerated one printed in Time, many people were sent into a panic about indecent material on the Internet. It is natural that they wanted to find a quick fix for this dilemma, which just happened to be complete censorship of it. But censoring the Internet will not keep children from accessing this information, because they are the ones looking for it in the first place. Lisa Smeiser said, “…these are the same kids who visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius to find the one stocking Playboy” (Wilkins 449).

            Now, Republicans and Religious right groups are pushing for a new act called the Child Online Protection Act, mentioned earlier.  Like the government, they are trying to limit the production of this “indecent speech”.  This act would require commercial Web sites that offer material that they consider harmful to children, to restrict access to those who can prove they’re adults. Where does this leave people Tom Rielly? Tom, 34, is chairman and founder of “PlanetOut”, a Web site that has offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The catch? “PlanetOut” is the country’s largest online service for gay men and lesbian women.  The site isn’t pornographic, but allows frank discussions on sexuality that may be helpful and informative (Kennedy 1). If the government were to censor the Internet with an act like the CDA, they would “…reduce the speech available for adults on this medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result” (Dalzell 443). 

            Stewart Dalzell made clear that this case is about indecency, not obscenity. 

He stated that the FCC has the right to regulate indecent material on the radio and television, as long as it is not banned completely.  Therefore it would be unconstitutional to censor the Internet of indecent material completely. In American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno Dalzell said, “Thus, any regulation of indecency in these areas must give adults access to indecent speech, which is their right” (Dalzell 438).  But who may judge what material is indecent and what isn’t?

            Tom Rielly was a lonely and frightened 17-year-old boy once, and even tried to commit suicide. Maybe if he had been able to access valid information on a Web site like “PlanetOut” as a child he would have found refuge.  But someone, somewhere, describes the site as harmful to minors and wishes to keep people from accessing this “indecent” information, because in their mind it is worthy of censorship. This is wrong.

Overall, there are many different views on Internet Censorship. Some believe that it is vital, and that without it our children will float helplessly in a pool of pornography every time they go on the Internet.  Other people believe that society is in a moral panic and censorship is not needed. Personally, I agree with opposers of censorship, and overall I believe that it would hurt society rather than save it.  In conclusion, Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix sums up my feelings on this issue well in these words: “Fighting the enemies of the Constitution is, of course, the price of freedom” (Kennedy 7).