Censorship On The Net
...t there concerning censorship on the Internet. These restrictions try and regulate the Internet in a similar way as broadcast media such as TV and Radio when in fact the Internet is extremely different. Justification for the censorship of TV and radio were established in 1978 with the birth of the pervasiveness doctrine. In short this gives the government the right to censor media that pervades into the homes of Americans. Limiting the risk that the TV or radio may catch viewers or listeners off guard with offensive material they did not wish to view or hear (Wallace 36). According Ithiel de Sola Pool this doctrine gives authorities the ability to implement "quite radical censorship." Censorship that might be applied to the Internet. Certain members of the government would have you believe that the Internet is forcing itself into the lives of people and making them view pornographic or other offensive material. No one sees anything they do not want to see online. A web page will never just pop up. People can take responsibility for their own clicks, they do not need to government taking away the possibility that they might stumble onto something provocative or offensive to some people. In June of 1997 issued a decision in ACLU v. Reno that stated the Internet is not pervasive. The ruling stated that "The receipt of information on the Internet requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial" and "The Internet is not as invasive as radio and television." This was a step in the right direction, but by no means and end of the problem of censorship on the Internet. It merely establishes that the Internet can not be censored in the same manner as television and radio. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was found unconstitutional, served to impose censorship similar to that on TV and radio on the Internet. As stated by Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) the Internet is a different medium of transporting information than is the radio or television. The Internet gives many people the ability to "publish" material on any subject they want. Censoring the Internet would be no different than censoring books. The CDA would take that right away from people. The main argument behind the CDA is that children are subject to view harmful material online. It would make for a broad-based censorship on the Internet at the source of the information. Giving all users, not just children, no choice on what they can and can not view. This is a blatant violation of first amendment rights. Its nice that the government wants to keeps American youth from viewing so deemed "harmful" material, but it is attempting to remove the responsibility a parent has in raising a child. It is a parent's responsibility to censor their children not the governments. The CDA tried to remove that responsibility, that right, from the parents. According to the CIEC the CDA was not implemented in order to regulate pornography or stalking issues online, as those are illegal due to previous laws. The CDA limits "indecent" or "patently offensive" content on the Internet. The CIEC points out the fact that this prohibits such materials from Catcher in the Rye to George Carlin's 7 dirty words. These may be offensive to some and entertaining to others. They should be there available online to whom ever wishes to view them. No one is forcing them down the throats of anyone. Fortunately the CDA was declared unconstitutional in a court ruling in Philadelphia during June of 1996, as it should have been. The CDA wanted a broad attack at the source type of censorship. This is not the only form of censorship threatening the freedom of Internet. Filtering is fast becoming a huge issue facing America. Filtering is the use of software that censors the Internet on the computer being used to access the Internet. When used in a private home filtering is a great method of keeping children from sites parents don't want them to see. When used in a library it infringes on the first amendment rights of people online. If certain members of the government have their way, such as John McCain, libraries might end up having filtering software on their computers. Not only would this severely hinder and attempt to do research on the Internet, but also it violates the first amendment. It is not an issue of pornography or other postings that all ready are illegal in some way or another. This software would filter such texts previously mentioned as "Catcher in the Rye" or "Ulysees." These are educational yet deemed offensive or harmful by some. The library is and always has been a center for gathering information freely. Laws that would require filtering would take away so much from that. Supporters of filtering argue that children have access to these computers and might be exposed to objectionable material. This may be so, but it is not fair to lower the type of information available to every one to a child's level. According to Judge Brinkema in Mainstream Loudoun v. The Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, "the library cannot reduce adult access to standards established for children (Dority 38). In this specific case the filtering software limited access to sites pertaining to such things as "Quakers, the Conservative Heritage Foundation, and AIDS (Dority 38). This type of filtering should not, and was not tolerated. According to Dority recent proposals on filtering would make it so schools and libraries that get federal funds would have to install filtering software on their computers that have Internet access. There is no need for this; access to any of the sites that might be considered offensive is completely optional. The site does not pop up on its own. The information can only be gained after clicking on a link which on most search engines has a description of the site right under the link. People know what they are going to see when the click. No one is forcing them to do so, and if a child feels the need to look at certain material their parent...