Internet Censorship

Introduction Censorship had always been a subject of debate among those who want media to be censored and those who feel that censorship is a violation of the freedom of speech. The internet has not escaped the issue of censorship. The internet is an information highway and no other form of media is as pervasive and far reaching. Those who favor censoring the internet feels that there should be some form of protection for minors and all people from viewing offensive materials on the internet while those who are against it believes that people should be given the right to choose what to view or not as stated in the first amendment.

This paper discusses the arguments for the need to censor the internet and why it should not be censored. Background With the observed prevalence of indecent language and obscene pictures in the internet, groups and organizations have called on for the censorship of the internet. The government’s response to this call was the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which was passed into law by the United States Congress; the act would regulate the forms of speech in the internet (Wallace & Mangan, 1996).

The law was seen by pro-censorship groups as a way of minimizing immoral content in the internet which might have contributed to the moral degeneration of our society (Qazi, 1996). A year after, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDA was unconstitutional and in turn protected the first amendment (EPIC, 2002). The victory of the free speech proponents over the CDA was short lived, in 1998; the Child Online Protection Act was signed into law by President Clinton  which in essence took after the CDA divergent book review essay.

The COPA mandated criminal penalties for commercially distributing materials harmful to minors including indecent speech (EPIC, 2004). The enactment of COPA again resulted to heated debates and protests over the unconstitutionality of the law, and the free speech protesters were not disappointed. In 2004, after a series of Supreme Court ruling against the COPA, it maintained the injunction on the enforcement of the law. Communications Decency Act of 1996 The President signed the Communications Decency Act into law in January 1996; the act criminalizes indecent speech on the internet.

The act identifies that speech depicting sexual organs and acts, excretory organs and acts in a patently offensive fashion under contemporary community standards as indecent speech (Wallace & Mangan, 1996). The dubious and vague definition of indecency and the standards by which a word (pure text) is judged to be obscene have made the act questionable. In fact, the CDA was met with violent reactions because it proved to be too restrictive and did not account for situations wherein sexually explicit words have to be used but has scientific, literary, artistic or political values.

The act also stated that indecency will be judged based on it being patently offensive, which in practice allows a jury to judge the material as indecent based on how they feel about it, regardless of its scientific, literary or artistic value. Moreover, it also permitted the community to determine the standards by which indecency can be measured. This is unrealistic, for every community or state has its own cultural standards and asking people to use words or materials that are acceptable to each community means restricting speech to the most conservative standards.

On the other hand, the Morality in Media, the National Law Center for Children and Families, the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families and the Family Research Council, who are pro-CDA argue that the CDA does not infringe upon the first amendment. The act accordingly updates and amends Federal obscenity statutes and dial-a-porn laws and that it requires adults who use patently offensive sexual expression to place blinders on their pornography.

Further, they point out that what is indecent is well known to the general public and the mass media and that the court should re-interpret the law to be applied only to prurient pornography (McCullagh, 1996). The Supreme Court easily ruled that the CDA was unconstitutional due to the fact that the act tries to restrict content and this is in direct violation of the first amendment. Child Online Protection Act of 1998 The Child Online Protection Act is another effort to censor the content of the internet.

It is different from the CDA in that it specifies that children should be protected from harmful language and materials made available in the internet. Thus violators will be subjected to steep fines and prison terms. As with the case with the CDA the COPA also is judged to be too restrictive. It mandates that all material or written text in the internet be acceptable to children, thus it would mean that the content of the internet is limited to children only.

In this respect the act states that identifying data should be provided by adults like credit cards to determine their age, but is also discriminatory to those adults who do not have credit cards. Thus the act again is a threat to the freedom of speech that is a fundamental and basic right to each human being. The Supreme Court also finds the act unconstitutional and even after a series of appeals and injunctions; it has maintained that the act cannot be enforced into law.

Meanwhile, those who endorse the COPA articulate that the act is dissimilar from the CDA because it applies to commercial pornographic sites. In an attempt to refute the arguments of those against the COPA, the pro groups reiterate that it is economically and technically feasible for the identified sites to check for the age of the surfers and that defining what is harmful to minors is not vague and complicated and can easily be implemented by the states (Macavinta, 1999).

They feel that the COPA is needed at this time and age because of the necessity of protecting our children from being corrupted by harmful materials in the internet that may be a cause for abuse and exploitation (Macavinta, 1998). Conclusions Efforts to censor the internet have failed because as an interactive medium it is a vehicle for the expression of man’s freedom of speech. Any attempt by the government to restrict it is a violation of the fundamental human rights of each individual in this democratic country.

But the justification for the need of a law to protect children from pornography and violent materials in any form is undeniably valid and should be also be respected. The Supreme Court has also supported the free speech groups in their fight against censorship and is undeniably a champion of the first amendment, but it does not mean that the SC do not give due importance to children’s welfare and safety but striking a balance between the freedom of speech and censorship is a difficult battle to win.