Freedom of Speech Versus Social Responsibility
Susan M. Anstead
CSMN 601 University of Maryland, University College
CSMN 601 University of Maryland, University College
“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.” When our Founding Fathers wrote these words some 221 years ago, they could never have imagined the controversies that would come to surround these simple phrases. After all, this was well before the days of widespread use of the press, radio, public and cable television, and most recently, the Internet.
The right of “free speech” in the press, in radio, and in television have been argued over the course of many years. The growth of the Internet has now brought with it many of the same issues that arose when other forms of media were introduced. On one side are those who believe that all forms of communication are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, while on the other side are those who believe that some topics are so morally offensive that they should either be prohibited, or at a minimum, have restricted access.
However, even if both sides were in agreement as to the publication or distribution of offensive materials, there would still be questions as to how the information would be monitored. Controlling access to earlier forms of communication proved rather straight-forward, as they were more tangible. For example, It is presently illegal in the United States to provide pornographic books, magazines, and videos to minors. To obtain these items, one must either order through a catalog (generally requiring a check or a credit card, not usually available to minors), or in person where age identification is straight-forward.
But contrary to other forms of media, the Internet is a somewhat anonymous method of international communication, with no governing body. The Internet has few comparisons to the sales clerk at the counter, and those that do exist have no legal enforcement. In addition, the Internet is international, and that which is considered illegal or offensive in the United States may not hold the same stigmas in other countries. Laws that are enacted in the United States do not apply internationally and cannot be enforced outside our borders.
Since the Internet was brought in to the home in the late 1980’s, people have applauded it’s innovations and decried it’s shortcomings. We recognize the high educational, business, and personal value of the Internet, but also question some of the controversial material that is also available.
At issue now is the controversy over the rights of Americans under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution versus the rights of Americans to feel that they will not be subjected to material that they believe to be inappropriate. The U.S. Courts have been envolved in similar fights pertaining to other forms of media, such as print, radio, and television. Now the Congress, through the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and the Courts are trying to apply these same laws to the Internet.
But should the Internet be subject to these same laws? Can they be enforced? Whose responsibility is it to control the content of the Internet, and whose responsibility is it to ensure that minors due not access material that is inappropriate for their age group? There seem to be no consistent answers to these questions.
In the upcoming months, we will see the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the appeal of the ACLU v. Reno Communications Decency Act challenge. Software blocking programs will continue to be updated and new ones will be developed. At the same time, new sites will appear on the Internet daily. The debate over offensive and indecent material on the Internet is certain to continue.
But what can we as Internet users do in the meantime? As Internet developers, we can ensure that sites developed by us or those under are supervision are suitable for all ages. If we must include material that could be considered questionable, we should be sure to note it from the beginning. As Internet users, we can support those sites that we find most appropriate. People are most likely to send letters of disdain to those we feel are inappropriate, while we forget to send letters of esteem to those we feel are child-friendly or contain quality material. As parents, we can invest in software blocking programs and ensure that they are updated regularly. In addition, we can move the computer from the office in the back of the house to a more public location. We can spend time with our children teaching them what is appropriate according to our values, and how to protect ourselves from that which we consider inappropriate.
Most importantly, we need to recognize that for the general public, the Internet is a new techonology. It will continue to go through changes over the next few years, with new sites and features coming and going. In the decades that have passed since the introduction of the radio and later the television, people have learned how to use them responsibly. The same will hapen in regards to the Internet -- with time.
Legislative Background on the CDA
Background on Terrorism & Militas on the Internet
History of Obscenity Law in the U.S.
MSNBC Report on Internet Pornography
University of Maryland, University College, CSMN 601 -- Spring 1997
Get your own Free Home Page