Restrictions on Internet Content
The time has come in America when an entity so large and broad has
taken over the way people operate their everyday lives. Although the
location of this force cannot be pinpointed, from its creation it has grown
to something of unimaginable bounds. Where can one find this?
Where is it located? The answers to these questions can be seen in libraries
and in homes, in towns and cities across the United States. The entity
that has taken over and conquered all the minds and imaginations of its users
has simple names such as the Internet and the electronic superhighway.
This superhighway has not come without prices, however. In recent years
the body that has come into homes bringing knowledge and information also
has come to carry certain “undesirable material.” This “material”
has put a focus onto the entity which started out as a device for the pursuit
of knowledge but now seems to be plagued with sites so outrageous in nature
they could not have even imagined a few decades ago. As in all forms
of media that have gone astray, the Internet has been scrutinized and dissected
in the past decade with “Big Brother” being the largest leader.
Should there be censorship on something without a trace, or should the people
have the right to view and see what they want? This is the question
that has led to the restrictions on Internet content and the seesaw battle
between the people and the body who governs the people. Through court
cases, the “Freedom of Speech” issue has remained the most integral
part of what “America” wants.
The year was 1996 when an act was established to lay out the
guidelines for the “telecommunications age.” This act was
the first major telecommunications act in over sixty years and along with
the act was a decency law (1). The Communication Decency Act (CDA) was
meant to protect minors from harmful content on the Internet, an act that
was bound for opposition since the introduction. The message of the
act was a good one, to protect those that basically couldn’t protect
themselves. For the children of America that found themselves on the
Internet looking for research but whom “accidentally” were shown
adult sites when they clicked a wrong button. The act’s form was
divided into two provisions, both prohibiting those under eighteen years of
age from receiving or viewing adult content, content that a generation before
could not have dreamed of getting their hands on (2). It was an act
that the government believed needed to be addressed and in so doing passed
what was believed to be a constitutionally sound act.
The belief that the CDA was constitutional was soon halted as the
special interest groups of the U.S. started voicing their opinions.
One such group, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), believed that such
an act went against the people of this nation. In their belief, the
“ACLU’s mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever
and whenever they occur (3).” The voice of the people had spoken
and on February 8, 1996, the ACLU went against the government in federal court
in Philadelphia.
This case presented not only the beliefs of the ACLU but also of
the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the American Liberty
Association (4). With both sides agreeing that “sexually explicit
material exists on the Internet,” the ACLU argued as to the fact that
“there is no evidence that sexually oriented material is that primary
type of content on the Internet (5).” Through the course
of the trial it was apparent that both sides agreed on much of the same matters,
but the solitary reason for the opposition to the act was because the ACLU
believed the rights of the people were being hindered. Whether if they
were or not, the outcome of the decision was announced on June 11, 1996.
In the response to the opposition of the act, the three-judge council ruled
that indeed the Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional and that it
went against the first and Fifth Amendment, which is for the rights of people
(6). In the conclusion to the trial, Judge Sloviter remarked that “just
as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty
depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment
protects (7)”. With such strong words the door should have been
closed to litigation and the torment of more trials, but with the United
States legal system a trial is not solved in just district courts.
Once the judgment was made, the justice department demanded an appeal
and on March 19, 1997 the court room doors opened once again (8). Although
the act was back on the table, after three months of the defense and plaintiff
pleading their cases, a decision was reached that again supported the ACLU.
In the words of Judge Dalzell remarking on the District Court’s ruling,
he stated that the law “lead[s] to the conclusions that Congress may
not regulate indecency on the Internet at all (9).” The
seven to two Supreme Court ruling was a positive step for the ACLU and those
other groups that played parts.
The Communications Decency Act was forever lost, but that did not
stop in the forming of a different act that in all realities mirrored the
dead CDA. The law that would soon be combated, was the Child Online
Protection Act (COPA) and it was passed in congress in the October of 1998
(10). COPA, in laments terms, was a close relative to the CDA because
of the infractions and fines that were imposed on those that broke the Internet
policy on the transfer of inappropriate material (11). Once again
a claim was filed and on October 22, 1998 the EPIC, the ACLU, and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiated a challenge to the Child Online Protection
Act (12).
A winning case was needed for the government who had faltered in getting
the CDA passed the courts. Believing that somehow the legalization of
this bill would be in a grasp, with only three years since the prior bill
was passed, the government once again tried to prove the “constitutional”
nature of the act. Had it not been for the interest groups, an opposition
would not have been carried out, but unfortunately just as the ACLU and others
have a right to free speech the Internet also has the same rite. The
District Court case of ACLU vs. Reno could be compared to the CDA in the fact
that the court ruled in favor of the ACLU once again. In the hearing though
the judge did remark on how “perhaps we do the minors of this country
harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully,
are chipped away in the name of their protection (13).”
The debate over what is right and what is wrong in the world continues
to this day in the ongoing arguments on what should be done about and with
the Internet. Should the outlook of the children be a priority or should
we concentrate on the wording of the First Amendment and what it means and
stands for? The Internet is and will always be a vast ocean of knowledge
and miscellaneous information. From the initiation of it in decades
past, the Internet has been an uncertain road that many travel on during their
daily activities. The cases presented before the many courts of the
United States exemplify that an end to the debate is a far off one.
Whether the government is correct or the people, the regulations that are
passed are viewed as beneficial to the betterment of the United States.
It is opposition, however, that proves that not all people are pleased.
Utilizing the right to free speech, the ACLU still strives to benefit not
only their cause but also the causes of many special interests groups. Through
court cases, the “Freedom of Speech” issue has remained the most
integral part of what “America” wants.
Reno/ ACLU debate still continues to this day with the appealing
process taking full effect. The nation was set so that the people of
the United States have freedom of speech and because of this can combat the
government. This is the age in which the Internet has come to play a
dynamic part of anyone who lives in the “electronic world.”
Through the arguments of common people to senators on how the Internet should
be free from restrictions, the question that should be asked is if the children
of the nation are safe? I believe that we do need some restrictions
if we are going to protect the children’s wondering eyes. The
restrictions are beneficial to not only the parents of the nation but to everyone
involved. It is time that the nation realize that the first amendment
can only go so far, and the implications of hiding behind the two hundred
plus year old law should be reexamined.
When the founding fathers approved the laws in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights, they were not saying that “all” forms of
freedom of speech were correct. Who could have realized what kind of
age we are now engulfed in now? The rational would agree, and even
the irrational, as to what can be done to view and monitor the Internet.
Already there are adult checks on sites, but with the growing number of children
logging on each day, is that enough? It is a debate that both sides
can argue till the end of time, but with the demoralizing issues that are
plaguing this once great nation, what the nation should ponder is that if
we don’t act now, will tomorrow be too late?
