| by Ryan J. Bruner | Last updated: April 12, 1996 |
There is a huge protest currently against the Communications Decency Act. Those sites who have a blue ribbon or a black background page are publically declaring the passage of this law an infringement on their right to free speech. I wanted to take this opportunity to briefly explain why this is not true.
If you have not read the act for yourself, I suggest you do before you make a judgement. Here is the text of the portion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that is referred to as the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
This document is a work-in-progress.
Contents
The purpose of this document is not to condemn anyone for not supporting the CDA. It is, however, an attempt to inform people that most of the negative information being spread about the CDA is not true, and is often someone only stating their interpretation of what someone else has said. I hope that everyone will read the CDA for themselves. I also hope that everyone will consider the points below in addition to the points of the other side...those that oppose the CDA.
Freedom of speech is the largest area that people are protesting the CDA. The fact is, even with the CDA in place, the Internet infringes on freedom of speech far less than current laws that have nothing to do with telecommunications. We can be sued for slander against someone. Isn't this an infringement on my freedom to express my opinions about a person or company? Why is it that television is not allowed to show certain things, or allow characters to say whatever they want? This is an infringement on the freedom of speech as well, is it not?
A point that protesters are using is that publishers have the right to print any material they wish (barring illegal material such as child pornography) while the CDA prevents the Internet publishers from doing the same. However, the CDA does not prevent anyone from publishing anything on the Internet. What it does prevent is allowing unrestricted access to it. A child is not allowed to go to a store and purchase a Penthouse or Playboy magazine. Why should a child be allowed to view the same material on the Internet?
This is not any infringement on our freedom of speech.
Another view on the Freedom of Speech issue is presented in The First Amendment and Pornography, for anyone who is interested.
One of the lies being spread about the CDA is that people will no longer be able to say what they want in their e-mail messages. However, the CDA does not say anything about what you can and can't say in your e-mail. Here is what it does say:
...any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
While the first portion of this seems to indicate a restriction on what you may and may not say, the last part indicates that the intent of the message must be to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person". If you are using e-mail among friends, this does not fall into this category.
The fact is that the Internet is a public area. Any person, young, old, rich, or poor, may access any of the material on the Internet. This truth will continue to grow even more as the Internet's use grows. Already there are schools and public libraries providing Internet access. This means that anyone can reach the data on the Internet. And yet, people are fighting for the right to have free, unregulated access to anything they desire, even at the exposure to children, those who are dealing with sexual addictions, or those who don't wish to view such material. If we kept this how it is currently and looked at it from the point of view outside of an electronic medium, we see the flaw here.
Let us say that it was legal for me to have adult material (whether it is is adult movies, magazines, or the like) publically accessible. No longer are those children, those dealing with sexual addictions, or those who don't wish to view such material in a position to have much control. Children, by nature, are curious, and would now have free access to this material. Certainly, parents should not allow it, the argument goes. However, a parent is not, and cannot be with a child 24 hours a day from the time they are born to the time they turn 18. This material could be accessible to children at the school library (after all, there is nothing wrong with having it available for everyone to access).
I think the absurdity of this situation is just as true as it is with the Internet. Currently, there is nothing stopping anyone from accessing this material freely. No one is going to check the ID of someone on the Internet like they are required to do currently for adult magazines and movies.
The fact is the law doesn't make it illegal to have this material on the Internet. However, it is illegal to allow people to access it who do not wish access, or should not be allowed access. There are many sites already that require that you pay a fee, or register somehow to ensure you truly want access, and have permission. This is no different at all then requiring persons to pay for magazines and show ID to ensure they are old enough. This protects, not censors. The material itself is not illegal...only who can view it.
Take a look at this portion of the CDA:
(A) has taken, in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors to a communication specified in such subsections, which may involve any appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications, including any method which is feasible under available technology; or
(B) has restricted access to such communication by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number.
I think most of the fuss comes because for the past several years there has been easy, free access to it and now that will become more difficult. But how difficult is it, really, to send a payment and/or proof of age through the mail?
Some people are complaining that this puts too much responsibility on the Internet provider. What about the book stores, or video-rental stores? They are responsible if they allow "indecent" material to be given to those who are underage.
Additionally, this act is an extension to an existing law that applies to telephone, etc. According to those who are complaining about the law, the phone companies would be sued if someone use their phone lines to harass someone, etc. However, has this actually been the case? Could it not be that the person who does the harassing will be held accountable before the phone company? The phone company can only be held responsible if they find out about it and decide to do nothing. I feel this is true for the Internet as well. My provider will not be held responsible if I send indecent material to a child. I will. My provider will only have to deal with the law if they refuse to deal with the situation.
The law explicitly puts the choice of what is considered decent or indecent not in the hands of the government, but in the hands of the community. This follows the democratic way. If the majority feel something is considered indecent, it should not, logically, be freely accessible to everyone.
...in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards...
Would contemporary community standards consider it indecent to have the King James Bible, Venus de Milo, etc., be accessible to everyone? Some people claim these would be considered indecent, even though they, personally, do not. Is there evidence that contemporary community standards consider these to be indecent?
One of the large protests I see is that the lawmakers, as well as those who are afraid of indecent material on the Internet, is that they are not thinking for themselves, or are speaking out of ignorance. I agree that this may be true in some of the cases. But as for myself, I know the Internet well, as it has been my line of work for several years now. In addition, I have taken the time to read through the CDA several times, taking into consideration all of the protests I have heard. I can say that I have thought about it greatly, and am not speaking out of ignorance of the Internet. However, I do see many of the protesters speaking out of ignorance of the CDA. So many posts that I have seen are based on what they have heard from others, and not from what it actually says. Please take the time to think about it after reading the entire CDA for yourself.
Many people are in favor of giving parents full rights to restrict what their children see. Programs which filter what may be accessed is not enough, however. While this is fine for very young children, once a child becomes proficient at computers, some of these children, with their natural curiousity, will figure out ways around this. They may actually know how to uninstall software better than their parents. Far-fetched? I don't think so. I was in the third grade when I was writing computer programs...and that was about 14 years ago. Today children are exposed to computers at earlier and earlier ages. One of my nephews wasn't even in kindergarten when he was using a computer regularly.
I do think that software which gives parental control is very important. It is a step in the right direction...however, it is not enough.
I have purposely left out any discussion as to the morality of indecent material accessible on the Internet. It seems like the moment anyone claims that such material is immoral they are attacked for not being a free thinker, or forcing their morals on everyone else. I personally believe that it is more an issue of morality than anything else. However, the intent of this document is the provide reasoning beside the personal tastes and beliefs of an individual.
This is a list of others who support the CDA for various reasons:
This page contains the opinion of Ryan J. Bruner.