Internet Censorship 3761 Essay Example

to a specific location, making it difficult to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for addressing legal infringements.

The Internet's decentralized nature poses challenges in imposing censorship, but there is a growing risk of government approval hindering the previously unrestricted freedom of speech online. The protection of children often serves as a pretext to suppress free speech on the Internet. According to the American Library Association, censorship encompasses any alteration in material access enforced by governing authorities or their representatives, including exclusion, restriction, removal, or changes based on age or grade level (1).

The United States Congress has enacted strict measures through the inclusion of language in a new law called the Communications Decency Act. This law could potentially lead to a felony charge with a punishment of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for engaging in discussions about topics such as detailed information on birth control, AIDS prevention, and procedures for obtaining a legal abortion. Similarly, China is working towards restricting political expression by requiring internet and email users to register, allowing their online activities to be monitored under the pretext of security and societal stability. Likewise, the United Kingdom has stringent laws against spreading state secrets and launching personal attacks on the internet. The UK government actively regulates these issues online; however, such regulation would violate the principles stated in the First Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States of America states that "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" (Jefferson 3). The Internet's unique nature makes it unregulatable compared to other mediums since it transcends borders, rendering laws in one country ineffective in another.

Communications Decency Act

Disguised as child protection, this act poses a significant threat to internet freedom. Its aim is to protect children from sexually explicit material, violence, and abuse.

Despite parents' concerns about their children's advanced computer skills and the associated risks, the primary proponents of protectionism are offline censors. The Religious Right, who previously failed to combat censorship in traditional media, have now turned their attention to the online realm, causing substantial controversy. In January 1996, the United States Congress enacted a groundbreaking telecommunications reform law, representing the first legislative endeavor of its kind in more than six decades.

The legislation incorporates measures for promoting competition among telephone service providers and revising rates. Nevertheless, there are two sections in this legislation, endorsed by the Religious Right, that pose a substantial risk to freedom of speech on the internet. At present, it is estimated that there are over forty million internet users. Congress deems it necessary to establish new laws governing online activities. The initial section, known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA), was put forward by Senator Exon of Nebraska prior to his retirement.

The text below discusses topics that are currently illegal both online and offline, including possession and distribution of child pornography and distribution of obscenity. However, the CDA goes further by making indecency a crime, even though it is constitutionally protected as freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that indecency, defined as the "seven dirty words you can't say on television" (Silencing 1), cannot be completely banned

but can be restricted to times when children are less likely to be exposed, such as during broadcast media like TV and radio.

Television and radio are considered highly intrusive since offensive materials can be accidentally seen or heard when flipping channels. The Communication Decency Act (CDA) applies the same restrictions from TV and radio to cyberspace. However, the Internet is not highly intrusive; it is a search-driven tool. Pornography cannot be accidentally viewed; one must actively search for obscenity to be exposed. Additionally, online information is available anytime, unlike TV and radio which have limited broadcasting times. Nevertheless, the CDA has criminalized the dissemination of indecent material when a child may potentially encounter it.

The United States Supreme Court formulated a test for the broadcast media that results in cyberspace being limited to content suitable for children. This broad definition of prohibited materials includes Harlequin romance novels, discussions about breast cancer and AIDS, as well as the Bible. Another concerning aspect of the telecommunications reform legislation pertains to free speech online. Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois added a provision criminalizing "any written content, regardless of its nature."

According to Silberman (7), the telecommunications reform legislation now includes a provision that makes it illegal to discuss abortion through online platforms, whether directly or indirectly. This new addition has sparked outrage among civil liberties advocates who believe it violates the First Amendment.

President Clinton signed the bill into law on February 7, 1996, despite opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In response, they filed a lawsuit against the government seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction on the decency provisions until the case

was resolved. Fortunately, on June 12, 1996, Internet users rejoiced as the Communication Decency Act was overturned by a three-judge panel in the United States, protecting their First Amendment right.

During a Federal District Court hearing, both supporting and opposing arguments were presented regarding the CDA (Communications Decency Act). Judge Stewart Dalzell delivered his ruling, stating that the Internet can be regarded as an ongoing global conversation. He stressed that the government cannot disrupt this conversation through the CDA. Additionally, Judge Dalzell highlighted that the strength of the Internet lies in its disorder, just like our freedom relies on the disordered and diverse range of speech protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, without any hesitation, he declared the CDA unconstitutional. It is important to note that attempts to restrict speech in cyberspace have been made not only by the United States Congress but also by other governing bodies.

Pressure from the German government led to Ohio-based CompuServe temporarily restricting access to two hundred discussion groups for its subscribers worldwide. However, CompuServe reinstated access after numerous American subscribers threatened to cancel their service unless the groups were made available. According to Steve Dasbach, chairman of the Libertarian Party, this decision will prevent politicians from interfering with a technology that they do not understand. (128)

Legal Challenges Regarding Internet Censorship

The legal landscape concerning the Internet is constantly evolving, with ongoing debates regarding appropriate forms of censorship on the platform.

President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Bill on February 1, 1996, which sparked controversy due to its various provisions. One specific provision of the bill pertains to the prohibition of certain types of content on the Internet. In 1995,

a University of Michigan student came close to getting arrested for sending an email containing a disturbing message about committing rape on campus to an individual in Canada. Similarly, the operator of Amateur Action, a Bulletin Board System (BBS), was imprisoned for developing a website that allegedly violated local community standards. These incidents highlight how government intervention in regulating online activities has been steadily increasing. It is worth noting that prior to 1991, there were no regulations governing internet operations and content.

Before the introduction of the World Wide Web in 1993, the internet provided a platform for unrestricted expression and access to controversial material. However, this changed as regulations were introduced to control explicit websites, such as through the Telecommunications Bill. Despite these efforts, these websites continue to thrive online. The global nature of the internet enables their operators to relocate them easily to countries where they are not prohibited, ensuring their survival.

Although people in the U.S. can still access the website, they cannot be legally punished since the server is located in another country, which presents a major difficulty for governments. Germany, for example, seeks to prohibit its citizens from viewing neo-Nazi propaganda even if it is hosted on a Canadian server within legal boundaries. The United States is where opposition to censorship is strongest and internet users are acquainted with blue ribbons shown on web pages as a sign of unity in safeguarding online freedom of expression.

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the presence of inappropriate content on the internet and governmental attempts to restrict certain online information. Bill Gates cautions against measures that may remove the advantages of the interactive nature of

the internet, all while aiming at offensive material. This brings into question whether the internet can successfully self-regulate, particularly in regards to its suitability for families, schools, and businesses. Undoubtedly, the internet has exerted a substantial impact on our society.

Rather than giving the government control over the Internet, concerned parents can purchase filtering software to block inappropriate content for minors such as information, literature, graphics, and images on personal computers. President Bill Clinton stresses the importance of providing parents and teachers with tools to create a safe online environment for kids. He believes that in order for the Internet to be an educational resource, it is crucial to protect children from explicit content found in certain areas of cyberspace (Silencing). By using effective filtering programs, individuals can ensure that the Internet remains a platform for sharing ideas and information while also allowing them to protect themselves or others from offensive material. Many private companies offer censorship software to help parents safeguard their children against pornography or other objectionable materials.

The software is regularly updated to compile a list of pornographic sites. If a child attempts to access one of these sites, the software will block their entry. The settings for the filtering software are password-protected. This technology allows users to maintain control over the content available on interactive media, rather than giving that control to the government or network operators. Flexibility is crucial when selecting a program to ensure safe internet surfing.

It is important for parents, educators, and others to consider that the limits suitable for a seven-year-old may feel restrictive to a fourteen-year-old. Special attention should also be given to young children who are making

Internet contacts. The effectiveness of any filtering program relies on its proper installation and configuration. If parents want to control their children's online viewing, they may need to resort to supervising their kids' internet usage as a traditional solution. One way to do this is by placing the family computer in a public room within households, making it easier to monitor and guide a child for safe and enjoyable Internet browsing.

Conclusion

There are individuals who argue that enforcing regulations on the Internet is impossible, thus minimizing the threats against free speech.

Preserving fundamental civil liberties is crucial and it is important to recognize their significance. Laws that censor and the possibility of legal repercussions can discourage electronic communication. Hence, it is vital for individuals to come together and address these threats in order to protect the right to communicate. This becomes even more critical considering the number of people who have not yet engaged in online activities.