With the advent of the modern Internet, global society finds at its fingertips the most inclusive, democratic communications medium ever developed. Never before has the average person had the ability to speak out to a world audience in real time, to express themselves in such a large capacity through the use of text, graphics and multimedia. This condition has led to a largely unrestricted flow of information, with a diversity of content limited only by the human imagination.
This unrestricted flow began to raise concerns in the early to mid 1990’s, as some parents, politicians and special interest groups brought attention to ‘indecent’ and /or ‘patently offensive’ (adult-oriented) material that was available on the Internet. Concerns were centered around the idea that this material was being made available to children and young adults under the age of 18, and that harm was being done to children as a result.
Many of these individuals and groups advocate censorship of the Internet as a way to deal with this perceived threat.
One such group, Enough is Enough, a non-profit, non-partisan women’s organization, began to lobby Congress for legislation to protect their children from online adult-oriented material. While testifying before the Senate, Dee Jepsen, Executive Director of Enough is Enough (www.enough.org), explained why her organization believed pornography should be censored on the internet:
“…women speak with a special authority on the issue of pornography—for we, and our children are its primary subjects…and its primary victims. Pornography demeans and degrades women, victimizes children and ruins men. It contributes to domestic and spouse abuse, rape, incest and child molestation. And a great share of it is not protected speech, any more than libel, slander or false advertising are protected speech; therefore, it is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is not legal material. Many Americans do not realize this fact.”
The preceding testimony was given in support of The Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995 (PCCPA), an example of the types of legislation brought before the House and Senate in the mid 1990’s. Typical of legislation that would be subsequently proposed, this act would criminalize ‘…utterance of indecent or profane language by radio communication; transmission to minor of indecent material from remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service…'
Certainly one of the highest profile examples of attempted government censorship of the Internet was brought into the public forum with the passage of the Communications Decency Act (SB 314 and HR 1004), signed by President Clinton and enacted into law on February 1, 1996. The government felt that “…the protection of the physical and psychological well-being of minors by shielding them from materials that are harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest…” While the legitimacy of this statement may be questionable, it helped form a foundation for the government’s argument for the validity of the new law. The CDA penalized not only people that transmit or “make available” “indecent” and/or “patently offensive” material to minors, but also held responsible those in control of the internet service providers used to facilitate such transmissions. In other words, the ISP’s would be held legally liable for anything posted to a newsgroup, emailed, or put on a web page by their clients.
A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others (ACLU v. Reno) charging that the US Government, by enacting such a law, was violating First Amendment guarantees related to free speech. They reasoned that by effectively reducing the content of the Internet to only what is acceptable for children, certain speech protected by the First Amendment would be criminalized for adults. Also, they believed that defining ‘indecency’ by comparing the nature of certain content to ‘contemporary community standards’ was unrealistic due to the peculiar non-geographical nature of the Internet. The three judge panel of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated First Amendment rights to free speech and Fifth Amendment rights to due process. In the Court’s decision, it concluded that:
“…the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion… Just as the strength of the of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.”
The Court’s findings lead to the conclusion that the government may not regulate ‘indecency’ on the Internet at all. The four related characteristics that had ‘transcendent importance’ in the Court’s holding that the CDA was unconstitutional were:
In December 2000, US Congress pushed legislation through that requires blocking software to be installed on computers in all public schools and libraries funded through certain federal programs. The Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act went into effect on April 20, 2001. These new laws place restrictions on the use of funding through the Library Services and Technology Act. The US District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania issued a court order to hold hearings on this case in March, 2002.(American Library Association v. United States).
The Internet has become quite an arena for debate on just about every issue imaginable, and the issue of Internet censorship has certainly not been ignored. While there are plenty of well-organized groups clamoring for attention and acceptance of their points of view, some of the most interesting and enlightening (and maybe even disturbing- depending on individual belief) editorials, research articles and essays come from relative unknowns. In the true spirit of the Internet, individuals as well as groups are contributing a multitude of opinions and ideas to the global information network. On the topic of Internet censorship, the most outspoken organizations tend to be well established, well funded political lobbying groups, such as the aforementioned American Civil Liberties Union. Some other groups include the Electronic Privacy Information Center (www.epic.org), the American Library Association (www.ala.org), and the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org).
Support for censorship of the Internet seems to be focused mostly in conservative Christian groups and individuals, and also seems to have at least mild support from various women’s and feminist groups:
“Feminists on the left and moralists on the right have found that their political preferences regarding censorship are not all that far apart. Both groups are, for different reasons that don't really differ all that much, eager to use the coercive power of government to suppress anything they define as pornographic.”
However, a search of the American Christian Coalition’s website (www.cc.org) yields only an offer to subscribe to a server-side filtered ISP (FreedomISP.net); outright support for Internet censorship legislation is never mentioned. One particular website found on an Internet search does advocate extensive censorship of the Internet, and does in fact represent fundamentalist Christianity (www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/eff.htm). As the author of this page states:
“The author of this site is pro censorship. I believe that there is a desperate need to censor the net to remove the filth that is not only available to adults, but is readily avaible[sic] to any child that might have access to the net. All these software packages that are supposed to filter porno material are probably a complete waste of money as new porno sites pop up every day, and some change their addresses and names just to avoid detection by these packages. The deviates that produce, sell, and display their filth will do anything to pervert the minds of our children. To[sic]long have the illegal porno, paedophile[sic] and filthy immoral sodomite groups used the internet as a means of peddling their filth..."
At the heart of the censorship debate lies probably one of the most appropriate and important questions. Even if suppressing certain types of information found on the Internet is the right thing to do, is it technologically feasible? The answer to that question at this time seems to be no. Even if the technology were available at this time (which it isn’t), there is still the question of jurisdiction. According to David L. Sobel, an attorney for the Electronic Information Privacy Center:
“One of the most glaring flaws in the logic underlying the CDA is in the drafters' failure to recognize the global nature of the Internet. Even assuming that technological means of compliance could be developed and found to be constitutionally permissible, the statute would only influence the practices of content providers physically situated within the United States. Foreign providers, or even U.S. interests who elect to move their operations off-shore, would be immune from prosecution.”
Although complete censorship of the Internet looks to be technologically and jurisdictionally unrealistic, this does not mean that individual users are not currently capable of controlling their own online experience, and that of their children. There is a large and growing market supplying end-user filtering software for exactly this purpose. For opponents of Internet censorship, there seems to be a consensus that use of this type of software at the end-user level is the only realistic and effective approach to tailoring appropriate Internet use in any given case. Many on the Internet have stated their desire to be able to customize online experience for themselves and that of their children, without laws being passed to restrict the behavior of the entire Internet community:
“....Furthermore, not every parent wants protection by Congress. I am the father of two small children. I'm sure that, within the next few years, they will acquire Internet access and begin "surfing" the net. Before they do, I will explain to them what is out there, what they are likely to find and how they are expected to behave themselves. But I insist on deciding what material is appropriate for them and what is not. No one has the right to decide what my children should and should not see..."...Freedom of information has its price as well. A knowledgeable Internaut can, with a little work, obtain access to stories and images that some people find obscene. In fact, with a little more work, she can access material that most of us find obscene. Finally, with a great deal of work, she could find material so repugnant and morally offensive that any sane person would be sickened by the thought of viewing it. And you know what? I can live with that…”
It would be foolish to think that the debate over what constitutes “appropriate” content on the Internet is going to end anytime soon. The ability to transfer information from place to place at the speed and volume that the Internet allows has marked a new age in human history. It seems likely that, in the future, this issue will interweave itself into every facet of human society: politics, education, economics, science, and human and individual rights, to name just a few. The information that flows through this global network will play a large part in how we continue to evolve as a species.
************************************************************************
Sources used in research and development:
http://www.lp.org/lp-blue-ribbon.html
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9505-decency.html
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9603-talking.html
http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/1/sobel.html
http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n092001d.html
http://www.historyoftheinternet.com/chap2.html
http://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/safety-net/r3.htm
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/
http://www.landier.com/michael/essays/censorship/fulltext.htm
http://www.epic.org/cda/highlights.html#CDA
http://www.cc.org/netaccess/shockfactor.html
as well as linked items in the main text...