ethic of personal responsibility, in which users and those who provide the services
are mindful of the potential for mischief (Knight Ridder 212).
This article was provided as a way of showing the reader why the internet should not be
censored. The solution is not in censoring the internet, but in teaching children what the
difference between right and wrong is. Like the article says “In a free system such as the
Internet, however, monitoring data from computers worldwide may be next to
impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy the freedom that gives the
Internet its value” (Knight Ridder 212). The second article is also pro internet freedom
as well. Here is the article to clarify any misconceptions about this paper’s purpose:
Like the Maytag repairman in the TV commercials, Congress is itching to fix
something that isn’t broken: the Internet and online services. As part of the vast
new telecommunications bill, both House and Senate are on the brink of making it
a federal crime to expose minors to naughty words or pictures in cyberspace.
Double-clicking the “send” icon could become a dangerous act. Jail terms and
huge fines would be slapped on anyone caught “knowingly” transmitting indecent
material to minors, or to any freely accessible area of a computer network. Reports
from the online front indicate that dirty talk and sexually graphic images are far
less prevalent, or available, than the recent congressional lather on the topic would
lead you to believe. In fact, the glossy mags behind the counter at any convenience
store are probably more accessible to the young. So far, though, nothing has served
to turn back this movement. Never mind that the Justice Department insists
existing laws are adequate to combat illegal pornography, in whatever form. Never
mind that, given the global nature of the Internet, any attempt to enforce a national
standard of decency is doomed. Never mind that the whole push to set federal
government up as cyber-censor runs contrary to the prevailing philosophy: Get
intrusive federal bureaucrats off the backs of citizens and trust in the magic of the
free market to solve problems. The maddening thing is this is one case where the
profit motive “is” riding to the rescue. Ever since the alarms first went up, the
software industry’s wizards have been churning out programs that enable adults to
monitor and block objectionable material. Not even a flaming _ e-mail parlance
for a tongue-lashing _ from House Speaker Newt Gingrich has made much
difference. Like many folks, Speaker Gingrich regards the congressional
crackdown on the online world as an assault on every citizen’s basic right to free
discourse. Over the summer and in recent weeks, it appeared the House would
recommend far less intrusive measures than the Senate. But the push for more
reasonable steps such as online warning signs has faltered. What hope is there of
keeping cyberspace as free as possible? A presidential veto would be the quick
way; court cases and the inevitable discovery that the harsh restrictions just aren’t
enforceable would be the long, costly way. It would be better if a public outcry
convinced Congress now that its attempts to curb Net-surfing are about as foolish as
ordering the waves not to come rolling in (Knight Ridder 214).
The two of these articles were intended to be a supplement to the main idea of this paper.
They are two examples that further show why the internet can not be censored.
The obscene material found on the internet has caused some decisions to be made
about what violates community standards. A private bulletin board operator in California
was prosecuted in Tennessee for making some material available to a member of the
Memphis community. The operator in California was found guilty by the Memphis
judicial system. The jury ruled that local community were comprimised when the
offensive material was made available to the postal worker from their community. Even
though this sort of thing may be legal in California or on the web, the Memphis
community felt that this sort of thing was inappropriate. According to Harvard Law
School Professor Laurence Tribe, even with the ruling in this case “The question of
community standards hasn’t been adequately solved solved in any medium” (Quittner
56).
The internet should not be censored. There are many other ways to solve the problem
of inappropriate web sites on the internet and censorship is not the best one. Educating
people on the uses and misuses of the internet is one of the best ways to filter the world
wide web as well as others already mentioned. A small group of people can not be
allowed to dictate to the rest of the world what they can and can not view or express on
the internet.
Brown, Andrew. “The Limits of Freedom.” New Statesman. 12 February 1999. 48.
Diamond, Edwin. “Five Difficult Issues.” Technology Review. October 1995. 24-33.
Economist. “The Top Shelf: Internet Censorship.” The Economist. 18 May 1996. 84.
Giradi, Albert. “Bringing the Law to the Internet.” Time. January 1995.
Knight Ridder. “Policing the Internet: Can it be done without trampling individual
rights?” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Serivce. February 12, 1996. 212.
Knight Ridder. “Time to stop push to Censor Cyberspace.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News