The Internet began in 1969 as a project “ARPANET” funded by the U.S. Government, since then the use of the Internet has exploded. The number of users who use the Internet has rapidly grown from 738 million in 2000 to 3.2 billion users according to a new report from the International Telecommunication Union. The Internet is constantly expanding and evolving and the use of government regulation on the internet has become a big issue. Censorship of the Internet has be suggested to prevent many things such as pornography, hateful speech, and instructions to make bombs. Censorship of this content has be justified to lead to the greater good, even if consumers are limited to the information they can find or put on the internet. The internet it a …show more content…
The amount of unregulated information on the internet started to raise concerns with parent and politicians in the 1990’s. Many Adult purposed sites caused organizations to purpose bills to the House and the Senate such as The Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995 (PCCPA) witch stated that. “Pornography demeans and degrades women, victimizes children and ruins men. It contributes to domestic and spouse abuse, rape, incest and child molestation. And a great share of it is not protected speech, any more than libel, slander or false advertising are protected speech; therefore, it is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is not legal material. Many Americans do not realize this fact.”(Dee Jepsen, Executive Director of Enough Is Enough). The PPCCPA was no successfully made into a law it did help lobby other similar bills such as The Communications Decency Act of 1996 co-authored by Senator Exon That passed as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The CDA allows the government to regulate and censor speech on the Internet. “The Decency Act stands for the premise that it is wrong to provide pornography to children on computers just as it is wrong to do it on a street corner or anywhere else” (Jim …show more content…
The CIEC argued that the Internet was not like a television or a radio and should not be regulated as one and challenged the CDA on the justification that the Internet is a distinct means of communication, unlike traditional broadcasted media and deserves inclusive First Amendment Protection. The challenge against the CDA was presented in federal court with the CIEC and a numerous companies that are involved in the computer industry with the intentions that it violates the First Amendment and is unenforceable. In the defense of the CDA case, the Justice Department states that the CDA is essential because. "The Internet threatens to give every child a free pass into the equivalent of every adult bookstore and every adult video store in the country."(Seth Waxman). Another supporter or this bill President Clinton believed that the CDA was Constitutional “I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this Act to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted through computer networks" (Clinton). As a final rebuttal against the CDA. “an attorney representing a free-speech coalition and companies including America Online and Microsoft, told the court the
Ashcroft vs. ACLU, 00-1293, deals with a challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which Congress passed in 1998. The law, which is the subject of this essay, attempts to protect minors from exposure to Internet pornography by requiring that commercial adult websites containing "indecent" material that is "harmful to minors" use age-verification mechanisms such as credit cards or adult identification numbers.(Child)
The case that I chose to analyze is Reno v. ACLU. It is the first Internet related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided. Seven of the justices found the argued provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the Internet is similar to a shopping mall or library not a broadcast medium as the government refered to it. The majority opinion for this case was that the Internet is a unique marketplace for ideas. The ruling states that while there is a large amount of pornographic material out there, it normally isn’t come across on accident. They stated that the CDA already holds back a good amount of speech that is alright for adult to adult conversations, which they do have a constitutional right to receive. While they recognize the CDA efforts to protect children from harmful speech and pornographic material, it still does not justify the unnecessarily broad suspension of speech. The final outcome was that they found that what the CDA was trying to do would violate speakers messages who are rightfully protected under the First Amendment.
"We are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance. In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship." Even thought E. M. Forster lived over one hundred years before the Communications Decency Act was even proposed, he knew of the reason for its acceptance - fear. The Congress was afraid of the potential problems that could be caused by allowing Americans a new medium where animosity could be freely given. Rather than allowing this, lawmakers introduced a law that would handicap the freedom of speech. An internet provider could be punished for, in the words of the Communications Decency Act of 1996:
The Constitutional issue that was addressed was whether the CDA violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech (Reno, 1997). The court found that the CDA did infringe upon the freedom of speech protection afforded in the First Amendment. The CDA was an effort to restrict inappropriate material from reaching children under the age of eighteen through the internet. However, the court found that the CDA’s language was too vague and because of that, it ...
On to the question at hand, the Child Pornography Act (CPPA) of 1996 was written to protect children from sexual exploitatio...
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
... who want to safely enjoy the internet. This act is extremely unjust and fails to recognize the unique nature of the internet. I clearly understand the motivation for the Communications Decency Act, but feel that there was a terribly misguided effort to protect children from what some prosecutors consider offensive or indecent online material. I believe that this responsibility should be put on parents. Parents, not the Federal Government should determine for themselves and their children what material should come into their homes based on their own tastes and values. The Communication Decency Act simply goes to far in the attempt to "protect the children." I think that Vermont senator Patrick Leahy summed it up best by saying that, "Banning indecent material from the Internet is like using a meat cleaver to deal with the problems better addressed with a scalpel."
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
Freedom of expression and the speech is an indispensable element within democratic society and is well claimed under the article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our own First Amendment also patently indicate that the Congress cannot propose any legislations which limit the freedom of expression and speech. In the article Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet, the author Susan Brownmiller introduces the history of freedom of speech, in which pornography has been allowed and grown intractably, and claims that pornography is one of the “misuses of the great guarantees of free speech and free press”, so that it should be limited. The author of this article, Brownmiller, the founder of Women against Pornography, quibbles over prevalent pornography with a colloquial, but logical and formal style to the general audience by saying “I didn’t say that, although I wish I had…”. With these friendly styles of writing, Brownmiller borrows the position of other experts to express her idea in order to avoid any further misleadings.
“While most teenagers (60 percent) spend on average 20 hours per week in front of television and computer screens, a third spend closer to 40 hours per week, and about 7 percent are exposed to more than 50 hours of 'screen-time' per week”(Many Teens Spend). Many parents agree that they would rather not have their children view indecencies on the Internet and television, and the government should control the obscenities on the Internet. Others believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to control and censor what their children are watching on the Internet and television.
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
They claim free access to the internet without the fear of being watched should be protected with free speech. I think it’s illogical to drag the Constitution into this because when the internet wasn’t even a thought when the Constitution existed. Our Founding Fathers had no idea how much progress our country would make, and in no way could prepare for what was going to happen with technology. Because of this, we must make new rules that outline laws with freedom of speech in the 21st
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
...nt and Civil Liberties groups, no one seems to be making much headway in determining where the line should be drawn when it comes to pornography. The positive is that child pornography is being acknowledged as a real problem, but law enforcement officials are still having a great deal of difficulty fighting it. The United States is taking steps toward implementing a multi-layered approach to governance, which will allow adults their freedom and protect children at the same time, but as of right now we are a long way from a solution.