Note: (Stuff in italisized parenthases I added later for comic relief)
Censorship and the Internet
People are starting to questiont he propriety of the Internet because they've been convinced by an excess of sex in the media that nymphomaniacs are out to corrupt their children. The Internet appeals to so many because of the freedom it represents. People are no longer judged by appearances (In a chat room, no one knows you're a dog), and they are able to express themselves in any way they choose without the fear of repression. But now government officials are saying that there should be restrictions on this freedom because mothers and fathers are claiming that those same nymphomaniacs are bombarding their children with smut, so now we must have our rights violated because Mom and Dad are using their Gateway as a babysitter.
"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."
So says the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, but this right is slowly being violated and defiled as government officials move for laws restricting content on the Internet. Even the Supreme Court agrees that our rights are being violated, as shown in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) decision. The CDA was an act to protect minors from "harmful material" on the Internet. But the CDA, the Supreme Court felt, was too vague in what it felt was "harmful", and due to precedents set in previous cases (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41), the Act was found unconstitutional and was dismissed. If laws cannot be passed restricting Internet content because they would abridge the First Amendment, what can we do to protect America's youth from smut?
Perhaps CensorWare, programs designed to ban some sites that contain questionable content, is the answer. CensorWare could be our savior! No laws, just parents choosing what they don't want their kids to see. Sounds perfect, right? Well that's just what CensorWare developers and Governments want you to think. Most CensorWare services are wolves in sheep's clothing. For example, the CensorWare program PICS was promoted as "Internet Access Controls without Censorship". And the company publicly emphasized a "multiplicity of rating systems, voluntary self-rating and labeling by content providers, and blocking software installed on home computers." It seemed to the public that PICS was the answer to their prayers. It was later discovered that the PICS software not only allowed Internet restriction dictated by the family, but by the Government as well. Less than twelve months after PICS was made available, it was indicated that governments would enforce or coerce the use of PICS facilitated systems, and it was becomming increasingly probable that self-rating would become mandatory and one would be prosecuted for mis-labeling or failing to label one's Web Site. CyberSITTER is another example of misleading services. CyberSITTER pressures Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to ban sites that CyberSITTER found objectionable, and will block any sites that it feels contain material that falls under its criteria for banning sites. What is CyberSITTER's criteria for banning sites?
"Any site maintaining links to other sites containing any of the bannable content"
"Any domain hosting more than one site containing any of the bannable content"
"Any domain whose general policies allow any of the bannable content"
What CyberSITTER considers "bannable content" is unknown, but in banning all sites that fall under CyberSITTER's criteria, you would presumably be banning a vast majority of the major domains and all search engines. CensorWare services are an attempt to sell the public products that are not what they appear to be, and they attempt to rid the Internet of free speech on opinions CensorWare services disagree with.
"That's the rub. It's a bait and switch maneuver. The smut-censors say they're going after porn, but they quietly restrict political speech." Meeks/McCullagh, CyberDispatch.
People are so convinced that making laws or using software to restrict Internet content is the answer to their problems that they never stopped to concider their other options. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Smith feel that the Internet is unfit for their six-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son, so they spend all sorts of money on CensorWare, only to find that they themselves can no longer visit banned sites. Sites such as Women's Rights sites or Civil Liberties sites. One solution to their problem, that some may feel a bit extreme, is the removal of their Internet access altogether, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith could just use computers at work to access the Internet should the need arise. Or, Mr. and Mrs. Smith could "surf" the Internet with their children, instead of using the computer as a substitute babysitter. If parents take an active role in what their children see on the Internet, they won't have to fear those sex crazed wackos. But contrary to popular belief, nymphomaniacs aren't necessarily lurking in the shadows of the "Information Superhighway" just waiting for a child to come along for them to harass, and you can't view porn or smut unless you specifically look for it. If little Johnny were to type in a search for "Blues Clues Merchandise" the search wouldn't return sites such as playboy.com or penthouse.com, it would give him sites that fit the search criteria. So perhaps the answer to the whole Internet Censorship debate doesn't lie with laws or programs, but with parents who choose to take an interest in what their children see.
The Internet isn't something that should be restricted and contained. The thing that made the Internet so popular to begin with was its freedom. To make laws restricting content would only impede intellectual pursuits such as discussion forums and/or recreational activities such as chatting with a friend or family member across the globe, but it would also abridge the right entitled to us by the first amendment of the COnsitution to the freedom of speech. The Internet is not something to be feared and balked at, but something to be embraced and protected. If used with care and an open mind, the Internet can be a safe place for one and all.