Many proponents of Internet censorship want strict control over this new information medium. Proponents of Internet censorship such as Senator Jim Exon (D-NE), co-author of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), are in favor of putting strict laws into place regulating the Internet in order to protect children: "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" (Exon). These proponents suggest creating laws for the Internet similar to those now in place for television and radio. Those strongly opposing Internet regulations, such as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), assert that the Internet is not li... ... middle of paper ... ...1997): n. pag. Online.
They say that the Internet has to be censored because it has material, especially pornography, which can and will be offensive to others. But not everybody agrees with that. The censorship of the Internet is still a very controversial issue, and people all over the world debate whether or not this is a case against free speech. While Morgan states that by censoring the Internet we’ll be protecting ourselves and our children, Mr. Jeffrey Pollock, a Republican from Oregon who used to think the same, recently changed his mind when he found out that his own site had been blocked by an Internet filter. After the incident, Mr. Pollock expressed that “To mandate the federal government to legislate morality, I find abhorrent”(Schwartz).
Section 2703 of USC Title 18 is the section that instructs Internet Service Providers to keep a back-up record of your activities on-line with a court order from a government entity. Then after the government notifies the individual in question, the material is either used by the agency or is destroyed. Probably the biggest battle yet over the first amendment rights so far has been the Communications Decency Act or CDA. In March 1995 Senator Jim Exon introduces legislation to criminalize online publication of any material deemed "obscene, lascivious, filthy or indecent." This legislation was attached to a larger and popular Telecommunications Reform Bill.
But, as soon as the federal government decided to tell us what we can and cannot say over the Internet would be considered a violation of my first amendment rights to freedom of speech. One point brought up by author of the article I found in Editor & Publisher "If hard-core pornographic materials are illegal in the mainstream distribution channels, it should be also illegal on the Internet.
"[T]he ‘nicknames’ were sepa... ... middle of paper ... ...13 American University International Law Review (1998) 765-814. Online. Available from WestLaw database Journals and Law Reviews file: AMUILR Reno v ACLU electronic Privacy Information Center Online. No. 96-511 Argued March 19, 1997 - Decided June 26, 1997 http//:www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html "Supreme Court Affirms a Portion of the Communications Decency Act," Cole Raywid & Braverman, LLP (1999) 1.
(Carr, 1998) Carr mentioned the buzz phrase "rating system" as an example of a way to censor the Internet. This "rating system" is a way in which certain issues, pictures, information, etc. can be censored. However, not everyone is in favor of these "rating systems." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly opposes this idea in their article "Fahrenheit 451.2-Is Cyberspace Burning?".
MSNBC News. 6 Dec 25 Nov 2004 <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078835/> Turow, Joseph. "Americans and Online Privacy: The System is Broken." A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. June 2003.
Retrieved April 23, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Miranda/ 4.. Mount, S. (2003). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved Saturday May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html 5. Murphy, G. (1996, October 16). Historical Documents: The Bill of Rights.
238, September 13, 1995, p. A15 (www.cato.org) U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al., 63 U.S. Law Week 4413, 4432. May 22, 1995. Wall Street Journal "Conflict in Congress," Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1996, p. A22.