|
"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 redress of grievances." -- The U.S. Constitution
This is the First Amendment to the United State's Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and the press. New laws being passed daily are in direct conflict with this precept laid down by our forefathers- laws that tear at the fiber of the American way of life and freedoms. These are the laws that also put many neighbors, sisters, and friends at opposite end of the spectrum.
Parents and various religious groups are the biggest proponents of these recent laws. Due to the offensive material accessible to children via the Internet, many citizens are concerned, as they should be. There is no easy answer to the censorship dilemma. Not one solution will work for everyone, at least none that anyone has come up with yet. Where the main controversy over Internet censorship lies now in our country, is with the public libraries.
More than 73 percent of public library outlets in the United States now offer some form of public Internet access, and the number is growing daily. Eighty-five percent of libraries offering public Internet access do not use filtering software. Many, though, are facing increasing pressure from the government and various groups to restrict children's and also adult access.
32 per cent of families with an Internet connection are using filtering software, but this is for their own private usage. What bothers some critics of government censorship is the fact that Internet usage at the library falls under "public" usage. So this censorship may limit some people's access to the Internet via public computers, especially lower income adults. So the children may not be the only ones censored by the filtering software.
Many opponents ask if losing our freedom of speech will soon follow after these new laws are passed. We Americans do not want freedom speech and of the press to be only a memory, but we also do not want to expose our children to some of the horrors that the Internet can bring into our homes. So, the controversy continues.
Yes, using blocking software on public computers is a direct violation of the First Amendment, say many critics, but advocates of Internet censorship for public computers that can be freely accessed by children argue that this is necessary. This controversy may rage on in the courts, libraries, and homes of America for many years to come. To explore this debate, let's delve into the legalities of Internet censorship.
Many of these new laws have been found to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), which would have made it a crime to communicate "indecent" materials on the Internet. In the case of Reno vs. ACLU, the Court said that the CDA had violated the First Amendment. The court also indicated that freedom of speech and expression far surpasses any need for censorship, especially in a democratic society.
In this historic decision, the Supreme Court recognized the Internet in the same category as books and periodicals in print. They said that the Internet is just as deserving of the same protection afforded books and newspapers by the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld former laws and said that if the Internet is found in our public libraries, then it is entitled to the very highest level of First Amendment protection under the law.
Laws Currently Pending
The Children's Protective Act is legislation is pending in Congress. This would mandate the use of blocking and filtering software by libraries and schools. In order to take advantage of a discounted rate for wiring and telecommunications equipment made available because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the libraries must agree to use blocking software.
Many opponents of Internet censorship say that, in reality, this is a type of political extortion or blackmail by the federal government. Those that oppose Internet censorship laws also say that this is how the U.S. government usually gets the states to agree to thinks like drinking ages, seat belt laws, and other unpopular laws. By threatening to revoke road repair funds, they force the states to pass laws that limit personal freedoms.
The supporters of censorship simply reply that protecting America's children is more important. Many of these parents, religious leaders, and conservatives say that these laws just must be passed to avoid having the minds of our youths soiled by the unsavory sights and sounds of the dark side of the Internet.
The government is pressuring local officials to engage in Internet censorship. This raises so many Constitutional questions. If the purpose is to suppress certain viewpoints or categories of speech, it is unlawful. In a recent case that centered about funding for the arts, the Supreme Court said that "the power to award subsidies" cannot be used to impose a "penalty on disfavored viewpoints " or to "drive" certain ideas or viewpoints from the free marketplace.
Conversely, the advocates of Internet censorship on public computers accessed by children say that this must be done. The children of America need the government to ensure safety to their children. Whether it is a pedophile, an XXX site, or violent web page, the government should pass laws to protect the youth of America from these inappropriate things. If kids can access these places from the library, then that is where the laws must be instituted.
Who does blocking software really block?
While this filtering software blocks children, so too are the many adults that use public computers at the library or any other public terminal. Many companies and even colleges have had to either been put out of business or they had to change their name because of blocking software. Beaver College is just one example of this. Even places that teenagers and kids should visit are being blocked. For example, Nizkor, a Holocaust archive is blocked. This site has hate speeches in its database- speeches that are important for history and understanding the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi's. All lesbian, gay, and BI-sexual content is blocked also, which may be useful to a teenager in a sexual identity crisis. Even references to Anne Sexton, the poet, are blocked by this software.
The opponents of blocking software ask this question: Where will it end? Well, it probably won't. They ask if we are maybe too willing to allow our freedoms to be compromised for the sake of a few dollars? The opponents of censorship say yes, but the advocates for the protection of American children from pornography disagree that this software takes away those freedoms. Proponents of Internet censorship disagree; they insist that this is a much-needed law.
Those opposed to censorship of public computers have a much different view. When the federal government starts mandating what adult people can and can not be exposed to on public computers, then we have lost our freedom of speech. In many ways, this is just another form of discrimination by unfair censorship. While 73 per cent of white students have a home computer, only 33 per cent of black students do. This is according to a recent study published in the Journal of Science.
The opponents of censorship as that we imagine for a moment what it would be like if people were not allowed to express their views at a public meeting. Imagine what would happen if we were not free to vocalize our distaste for our politicians. Imagine what it would be like to be told what we may see, hear, and believe.
Those in favor of blocking software say that protecting our children should be foremost in our minds and our laws. They ask that you image a world where ugliness, vulgarity, and sexual content are commonplace. Is this what you want for your children? The debate rages on, and it likely will for the foreseeable future. To help us illuminate the controversy more clearly, let's take a look at a few statistics.
Do you support legislation to restrict information on the Internet?
Here are the results of surveys on Internet Censorship:
Yes: 118 - (9.2 %)
No: 1171 - (90.8 %)
Should there be Internet Censorship?
Use individual and parental control: 50.29% said yes
Require pornographic sites to use a .XXX extension: 32.95% said yes
Government censorship: 16.76% said yes
The controversy on censorship is out of control. Whether we are advocates or opponents of Internet censorship on public computers, we all agree that children should not access inappropriate material indiscriminately. There needs to be some common ground and compromises if the lawmakers in this country want to come to a wise decision.
Censorship by ISP's and Web Browsers
Not only do our ISP's block us, but also even our Internet browsers do. Many people are not aware that they are unable to access newsgroups from many ISP's. Many have no idea that certain domains are blocked completely by their ISP. Many Internet users are happy about this added protection, and even more are not.
AOL is really bad about this. They block countless sites, for they think their users should not go to that particular site. Who are they to say where we should surf? But perhaps this is why so many parents choose this software. They have a blocking feature built into their service, which attracts many people that are concerned with censoring their children.
Netscape and Microsoft Internet Explorer block many sites that they feel are inappropriate or may pose a legal dilemma. How ethical and lawful is this? Some critics of Internet censorship say that it is reprehensible. Other, more moderate Internet users say that this is what they want. These people say that they have no use for the illegal and sometimes downright disgusting places that are blocked. If it helps to protect their children, the advocates of Internet censorship are behind it.
Are you free to access anything that you want on the Internet? Many proponents of Internet censorship say that many THINK that they have access to the Internet. The sad fact is that we have access to only those things that "the powers that be" think are appropriate for us. On the other side of the issue, advocates claim that anyone can access anything that they wish to, just as long as children are not exposed to the inappropriate material.
Many that oppose censorship of any kind bring the following points to light. There have been so many different rights that we have lost in recent years. Here is just a few of those rights. How many more will be lost by tomorrow? Those in favor of Internet censorship say that we must make some sacrifices in personal freedoms if we are serious about protecting our children from the dangers that this new millenium brings with it.
Online Sources:
New York Times
Peacefire
N.C.A.C
A.C.L.U
Women's Wire
You Debate
Cyber Pages
| 
