Responsible Speech - Limits to Free Speech

Accusation:	Congress doesn't know the first thing about the Internet. They just did this to spoil my fun and gain points in an election year.
Response:	From the CDA -	SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL. FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following: The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. POLICY- It is the policy of the United States-- to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
	Personal Opinion	I'm sorry, but this just does not sound like a bunch of power hungry technophobes trying to ruin the Internet for the rest of us. Congress has the responsibility to act in what it perceives as the best interests of its citizens. The difficult choice between "what the majority of my constituents want" and "what I believe is best for my constituents and my country" has been wrestled with in our government since the Rev. Josiah Witherspoon was deciding whether or not to vote in favor of the Declaration of Independence. (He decided to vote FOR the Declaration, AGAINST the wishes of his constituents.) Like it or not, there was a substantial demand for Congress to take some action to provide a means for controlling the proliferation of pornographic or indecent material (indecent in this case meaning something less than legally pornographic but generally seen as inappropriate for unrestricted consumption by minors - hence the "community standards" clause); as well as seduction of minors, stalking, and harassment using computers. There were existing laws for some of these concerns, but, prior to the passage of the CDA, there was little legislation specifically addressing computer-related crimes. Contributing to this demand were several published accounts of pornographic materials that were freely available to minors, several televised exposés of child molestation rings, "kiddie porn" rings, stalking, and harassment via the Internet. The 'net community's public response was that there was no big problem, that there were plenty of controls already in place, and that the community could police itself. The public didn't buy it. And also, apparently, the 'net community didn't buy all that much of it either. I reviewed several postings outlining why the existing and proposed tagging/filtering/access control schemes didn't/wouldn't work. Most arguments revolved around two points: filtering was too difficult for the user to implement and authors wouldn't tag because there was no incentive to do it (in fact, tagging was seen as its own disincentive because it would reduce "hits"). Interestingly, none of my bookmarks to these arguments are still valid. So, now there is the CDA to provide the incentive. And while it is not perfect, unless (and until) the 'net community shows evidence of being able to act responsibly, it would certainly seem to be necessary. As evidence, look at the advancements made in filtering/tagging technology and standards since it was enacted.
	Return to the Responsible Speech FMA page.