BY MAY, circuit court judges in Philadelphia will have made a decision on the federalgovernment's newest attempt to restrict Internet pornography available to the public. Though recent legislation to control Internet smut has failed because it is restricting free speech, the latest law takes a more passive approach. Nevertheless, the latest legislation is still just as wrong as the laws that preceded it, and it ultimately will cripple the educational and research capabilities of the Internet.
Many adults are concerned with the ease with which one can attain softcore and hardcore pornography with the click of a button, especially because many minors have unlimited access to the Internet when they are away from home or are not under the watchful eye of an adult. As a response to this concern, many laws have been passed and later overturned by the Supreme Court. The first attempt to control online pornography came in 1996, when Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, which was promptly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This act prevented offensive material, such as pornography, to be put in a public forum such as a Web page under threat of criminal prosecution.
The new Child's Internet Protection Act is similar to this previous attempt at censorship, but opts for a more passive approach. Unlike the CDA, the CIPA does not attempt to regulate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Instead, the law demands that all libraries use filters to prevent offensive material from being accessed by patrons. It also does not criminally prosecute those who do not comply, and instead revokes government loans from those who do not. People have protested this new law, accusing it of violating the freedom of speech, and regardless of the outcome of this trial, the case definitely will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
While done with good intentions, the bad that the Child's Internet Protection Act does more than outweighs the good. Even the defenders of the act admit that the proposed filters are not precise enough to block what is inappropriate for minors - while at the same time overlooking material which is acceptable. A filter on sexually explicit material also will hinder educational resources and general sites that have nothing to do with pornography, such as sites dealing with biology or sex education. Thus, there comes a degree of sacrifice with an attempt to protect children from smut.
With these filters in place, the educational capacity of the Internet cannot be used to its greatest extent at a library, which is where most people will need its thoroughness more than anywhere else. Many things cannot be found in books, and the Internet is the perfect way to find up to date and free opinions about a variety of subjects.
|
On the Internet, no one is banned from speaking his mind, no matter how explicit. A broad censorship of such a unique human accomplishment would be sad, and until Americans find the technology to judiciously filter the Internet, we should not sacrifice its positive aspects.
Congress and anyone who supports this bill on Capitol Hill has to be blind if he thinks that this is going to solve the problem of Internet smut. Even if everyone were to comply with the rules that have been set out, children still will get a hold of smut, whether it be in bookstores, in magazines or on the Internet in the privacy of their own home. The library is a place of research, and it is not the place where most people go to find their sexual thrills, let alone a minor who would be looking at these sites in the middle of a public area. Simply put, censoring the libraries does not solve the problem, because a library is not a prime location for viewing such materials in the first place.
The best solution to the problem of Internet smut is for parents and community leaders to teach moral values, as opposed to arbitrarily passing legislation. There needs to be a greater emphasis on making minors aware of what is educational and what should not be in their grasp. Americans live in a society where our youth is losing its innocence; girls wear makeup at a younger age, and all children are exposed to explicit music videos and shows that are played on television during primetime hours. Like every medium, parents and children need to regulate themselves, but if America needs a law to do the job for them, then the problem is even bigger than anyone imagined.
(Kevin James Wong's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
