June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States of America says the government cannot put restrictions as to what is on the Internet.

When I first heard this, I was outraged. I decided to write this article. Not wanting to do so out of the emotions I was feeling alone, I did a little research and gained some understanding in the process. For anyone who does not wish their child to view adult materials on the Internet, I urge you to read the following for consideration.

Arguments opposing and supporting the CDA were passionately spoken. Each question posed was answered promptly. The constitutionality of this Act was the issue before the court. Views differed and opinions varied, as far fetched scenarios were stretched before the CDA to see what the Act could withstand. In the end, it was deemed unconstitutional, interfering with adult's rights to freedom of speech.

While the Supreme Court noted that prior laws which ban the transmission of "obscene" materials and child pornography over any medium will remain in force and apply to the Internet, it also decided that on points of overbreadth and points of vagueness, the CDA's wording was inadequate.

During their arguments, it was suggested that parents should incorporate blocking measures to deny their children access to undesirable materials. It was also admitted that these devices are not able to screen out all sites and avenues of communication available. These programs would be time consuming for the parents and require constant maintenance to try to block as many sites as possible.

This would not solve the problems present on the Internet, it would simply be an avenue that would place sole responsibility on the parents for what their children would encounter in any given session. Suppose you or I put such blocks in place. The child could still venture to "Johnny's" house where such blocks are not being utilized and view all of the inappropriate sites from there. In this illustration, it is clear to see that this would just be a way of side stepping the responsibility of keeping this out of the sight of children.

Another option suggested was to "tag" all sites with adult content. Such sites would require an Adult Usage Number to access. It was argued that this would be too costly because in order for non-commercial sites to verify the user as an adult, a fee would be incurred on sites that don't charge for viewing.

Cyberspace is a new realm of existence. It's constantly growing and changing. Just as radio and television protested the beginning of federal regulation, the Internet will surely follow suit. Still, this is an issue we should not give up on yet. We simply need to try it from another angle.

If the courts are going to uphold the adult's freedom of speech, then so be it ...... but not at the expense of children. I offer now an alternative to the CDA, and would welcome your consideration and comments.

Cyber space is huge. It is large enough to oblige us all. It would surely accommodate an Adults Only "planet".

Whether it would be government or some enterprising entrepreneur, an entry fee could be charged to access the entire "planet" which would contain all sites, news groups and chat areas designed to include explicit or adult sexual conduct or conversation. A $5 to $10 fee per year would be sufficient to access the adult area. Some users would complain at first, but if that is where their interests are, they would pay such a fee.

The first test this angle would have to withstand is whether or not it is constitutional to segregate such parts of the Internet. Upon consideration, I see no reason it should not. (I'm not a lawyer or a lawmaker) Perhaps they would know better than I on this, but using a little common sense, I do not see why it would not work. Precedence for segregation have already been set in other areas of medium.

Adult books sold in stores cannot be displayed in view of minors. Radio and television have regulations regarding what can be aired. Children are not allowed to view adult films in theaters. In video stores, adult tapes are kept in separate areas. The Internet should be no different than other mediums of communication where appropriate viewing for children is concerned.

The Internet is a wonderful tool. It's a new and exciting frontier. Children should have access to it. The educational benefits reach far beyond any means available in the past. It should be a learning experience, and can be, for us all.

If we can accept adult's rights to freedom of speech, those same adults should accept the rights of children not to be exposed prematurely to the adult world of sex, pornography and sexual discussion.

Using the guidelines already set for materials harmful to children, obscene, or patently offensive, the separation could be made easily, with a little reorganization. Also, the government could require the adult content participants of the Internet to reside on such a "planet" and set penalties for those who refuse to comply.

Such separation may be the key. If adult themes were taboo on the open web, offenders would be easier to locate. Pedophiles, and those showing kiddie porn would be noticed. If adult content sites and chatrooms were isolated to one area not available to children, the affects could be curtailed. Children and those adults not wishing to view such areas would not be exposed to them.

Considering the outcome of the CDA in this Supreme Court session, perhaps it should be examined and viewed from a different perspective.

Would it be constitutional to enact a law that would mandate relocating adult sites and hold severe penalties for those who don't comply?

Perhaps lawmakers should consider this a possible avenue of upholding everyone's constitutional rights.

Adult themes are not appropriate for children. As adults, it is our responsibility to encourage the innocence and intrigue of childhood, without exploiting it.

Laws uphold this right of the children on land. Shouldn't they do the same in Cyberspace?

LinkExchange Member

Free Home Pages at GeoCities