Essay about: CDT Policy Post (Volume 4, Number 2)
From http://www.cdt.org
"Congress Rushes to Censor the Net. Here we go Again"

Click here to read the original article.

Fairly recently, a new bill was proposed which would make it manditory for all federally-subsidized Internet access to have software filters installed. This software would basically censor all material being sent through the internet to the specific site. The CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology) believes that sucha bill would definately violate the First Amendment and is in essence, no different than the CDA (declared unconstitutional).

The majority of committee during the hearing were insistant that something be done about the indecent material on the internet. They were concerned about children using Federally funded programs to access such material inappropriate for young children. Their basic explanation was that it would be inappropriate to give children such unlimited access to information without limiting it somehow.

Some members of the committee did profess to be concerned about a new legislative judgement about the Internet before they had heard all the alternatives to such a heavy handed tactic. Some felt that the people most able to judge what was "indecent" and what wasn't, were the school educators themselves, or the parents who were in charge of overseeing the children's educations.

The CDT feels that a major error which the McCain, Coats and CDA bills all ignored is the diversity of moral standards across the nation, and across the globe. It would be impossible to have a standard which would reach across all the country. It is the viewpoint of the CDT that parents should have the main and only jurisdiction to teach their children responsibility and judgement instead of the government trying to take over the job.

In most ways, the CDT is correct in it's judgements. Once again the government is attempting to regulate the internet for the general purpose of "saving the children from indecent material". This is effectively the same as saying that parents must not be able to regulate their children effectively, so the government should take over the job.

In thinking about how the government is treating the internet, it becomes clear that a majority of congress, and other government bodies are over reacting to the so called "indecent" material available on the web. Quite obviously, legislators lack of knowledge about the internet has them quite paranoid about the possibilities of children accessing pornographic materials. Since they don't understand exactly how easily such material can be accessed, they are quick to accept any method of blocking out all such material.

Also, if thinking about the censoring from a voting point of view, the largest voting group of americans is the middle to upper aged americans. These older people who eventually vote in the different members of the government are most likely in the same situations as our congress members. They don't understand how easily or how hard it is to access such "indecent" material, they just know what they've read in popular magazines.

Most magazines, catering to such older people often blow the danger out of proportion stating that there is pornographic material all over the web, creating an image that no matter where a child goes, they are going to run into pictures of naked women everywhere. Soon as these children enter a chat room, they are going to be assailed by sick old men who are going to corrupt these children.

What congress, and the voting adults of america need is more education about the internet, and the availability of pornography. As most of us who use the internet know, there are very few times when we accidentally run across pornography. Generally, the only times pornography is viewed, is when activily looking for it (which should be stopped by parents or teachers), or when looking up illegal subjects such as pirated software or MP3's, which are already illegal. Neither illegal sites, nor activily searching for pornography should be allowed by teachers or adults, thus showing the obvious job these supervisors have.

It is basically the same as when a child is supervised while going to a grocery store. We all know that pornographic material is sitting on some shelves within children's reach, but it is the parents job, or whoever is watching the child, to make sure that the pornographic material is not accessed. It is not going to fall open at the child's feet, unless they make a conscious effort. The government doesn't need to set up special secret service agents to watch grocery stores and protect all children from such material.

Basically the government, since it doesn't understand the internet, or the methods of accessing "indecent" material on the internet, attempts to take away parents and teachers rights and responsibilities. The CDT says "Both bills also ignore the right of parents to teach their children responsiilibty and judgement as they see fit". This is the main argument against such bills. There is a fine line between needed government intervention, and the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

When viewing other suggested bills, it seems a common theme for the government to misunderstand the internet. There are various bills which have been proposed to limit and censor the internet. It seems to be a common misconception that "indecent" material and other such materials are "spammed" across the internet, in places where children will accidentily access them.