Internet Censorship Essay

The ACLU argued in the lower court that the censorship provisions are unconstitutional because they would criminalize expression that is protected by the First Amendment and because the terms “indecency” and “patently offensive” are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. ACLU plaintiffs Particia Nell Warren of Wild Cat Press and Kiyoshi Kuromiya of the Critical Path AIDS Project told judges they fear censorship under the new law. Ann Duvall, president of Surf Watch, took judges on a first-ever live tour of the Internet, including a demonstration of how her company’s software blocks access to sites deemed unsuitable for children. Dr. Donna Hoffman, an expert witness on marketing in cyberspace, tells the court that the censorship law would destroy the democratic nature of cyberspace, causing many “mom & pop” websites to close up shop for fear of civil and criminal penalties under the vague “indecency” ban.

The first part of the CDA states if you display "indecent" or "patently offensive" information on the Internet, "in a manner available to a person under eighteen years of age," you are a criminal and have broken the law. The second part of the CDA reads you have a defense against prosecution if you take "reasonable, effective, and appropriate action" by restricting access to minors by needing a credit card (verified), debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. This act is to be thought of as a way to legally zone porn behind and electric gate that can only be accessed by those who have adult identification. To receive full access to pornographic materials, one can pay a one-time fee of $9.95 to an "Adult Check" service (Levy 54). Also the Child Pornography Protection Act has been passed. It is to combat the use of computer technology that enables a pornographer to alter a picture of a child to make it seem as though the child engaged in an explicit sex act (Quittner 74). Rulings about child pornography have existed for years and will always enacted whether it is in the cyber universe or in magazine and movies. State laws are also being made against smut found on the inter net. New York passed a law making information found on the Internet that would be illegal if published in a book or magazine, illegal. People who violate the law could receive up to four years in jail (Rosen

    In June of 1998 the country was horrified to learn of the death of James Byrd Jr. He was a 49-year-old black man who had been found horribly mutilated after being dragged to death. Authorities have charged three men with murder and violation of civil rights ("A Fatal Ride in the Night" 33). Obviously, if convicted, these men are guilty of a horrible crime, but what if this crime had been committed after viewing a racist website? If a person reads an emotionally charged, hate-filled website and then commits an act of violence, can the creator and owner of the website also be found guilty?

The constitutionality of the two provisions enacted to protect minors from “indecent” and “patent offensive” on the internet were at issue. The District Court held that the statute truncates the ‘freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The CDA didn’t define ‘indecent’ and left out any mandates that the ‘patently offensive material’ lacks values. It applies to the entire universe of the internet/cyberspace. The CDC lacks the precision that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In a nutshell, in order to deny minors access to potentially explicit and obscene speech, it would also keep a greater amount of speech from adults that have a constitutional right to receive. The CDA’s ‘indecent transmission’ and ‘patently offensive display’ provisions abridge ‘the freedom of speech’ which is protected by the Frist Amendment of the Constitution. There have been other cases that have had difficulties with having a conclusive definition of word obscenity. For example, the Courts restated its definition in Miller v California (1973). It substituted a three part detailed test to be used by each locality- the so called ‘community standards’ test to help define the

Since there has not been a ruling in this case, the supporters of the censorship laws had to try and find a way to get the internet censored to children. So in the year 2000, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is aimed at the computers in the schools and libraries that the children would have access to. This law was limited to "only the schools and libraries that participated in certain federal programs such as, receiving federal money for technology". The schools and libraries that received this money were required to "install filtering software on all internet terminals to block access to sites with child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors". My opinion on this law is that it is even better than the firs one. They are very similar, as you can tell from their names, there is very little changed in the names of the laws. I think that the sites that a minor can look at should be filtered. This way they cannot look at things that can be harmful to them.

The Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a federal law designed to protect minors from sexually explicit materials via World Wide Web (Walsh 1). Internet pornography is "readily

Censorship of the Internet is on the rise in highly populated states today. Although the Internet is considered as one of the most significant tools for the public sphere, many users have decried the Internet’s benefits and seen the Internet as a ‘double-edged sword’. Even as the Internet connects most of the world and gives valuable access to information, the same tool allows access to material that may be considered dangerous or harmful. The recent increase in discussion on the act of censorship of the Internet is part of the reaction to institutionalised censorship, particularly governmental censorship, of a public tool. Since censorship describes the suppression of public information in order to hide content that may be considered objectionable or harmful to the audience, as determined by governments or institutions, this particular outcry stems from the idea that what is considered harmful to society is subjective and should not be judged by an institution alone. Censorship can then become detrimental towards society by suppressing the human right to freedom of expression as well as also becoming a tool in the act of limiting the rights of minorities. In contrast, supporters of Internet censorship focus on the protection of inappropriate and harmful information from children and communities. By censoring certain websites that provide content that are obscene or harmful to minors, illicit activities such as kidnappings or cyber-bullying become less common. With

In 2011, several people started a “Don’t Filter Me project.” They wanted to remove the web filters on the school computers that blocked several educational sites. They filed lawsuits and demanded that they unblock these sites and take away the web filters. Also another group of people petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU in 1997. As a result, the court granted the “highest level of First Amendment protection to the internet.” Also in 2004, the Supreme Court “announced that it will not hear government’s appeal of a ban on the Child Online Protection Act.” They thought of this as a violation of the First Amendment (Internet Censorship 1).

The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.

It is obvious that for years, the government has been trying to regulate this type of content but has seen very limited success. Part of the reason for this is because certain regulatory actions intended to protect only a small group, such as children, should not require the prohibition of material that adults have access to in other arenas. It is for example, legal for people to rent pornographic movies or buy nude magazines, so distribution of this type of material on the Internet should not be completely limited. People shouting out for protection of their 1st Amendment rights have made a good point when arguing against complete censorship. What seems more feasible is a sort of multi-layered approach to regulate illegal and harmful content on the Net. This would make it possible to form some sort of insulation for children

Some people wonder who came up with the idea of internet censorship. Other people want to know which countries use it. Some ponder over the idea of what really is internet censorship. Internet censorship is controlling what can be viewed, and which sites can be used on the internet. Some things about internet censorship are countries that use it, and who started the idea of it.

Pornography. “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement.”(Oxford Dictionaries) Pornography has no positive effect, it serves no positive purpose. If anything pornography is the site in which we all already monitor ourselves when it comes to the fear of our innocent children coming across. We already try to protect them from it. Pornography engages with society on multiple levels. Where some enjoy it, there are many who believe the world wouldn’t be missing anything had it never been around.

“Never before in history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (qtd in “Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse”). The problem addressed in the quote by the U.S. Department of Justice is pornography, a 10 billion dollar industry, has made its way from discreet taboo to something that is today considered acceptable and even common. With the internet being such a common tool, it is no surprise that there is easy access to sexually explicit material. The widespread accessibility and usage of pornography has changed people’s outlook on the normality of watching such sexually explicit material, and

Internet censorship is developing far and wide and influences us, regardless that as United States citizens, we have additional technological opportunities than what many other nations do. Numerous Americans underestimate the opportunities that living in the United States permits us. Whether we are sending electronic mail, posting on our social media pages, or seeking out the latest news, we are ensured the opportunity of self-expression and an inexhaustible amount of information right at our fingertips. Censorship takes control of people's expression, and many countries, governments, and leaders support it for this reason. Internet Censorship in the United States in comparison to different nations brings to light the global and ethical issue regarding the basic human rights of education, communication, and freedom.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 borrows the definition of obscenity from section 292 of the Penal Code to punish the spreading of obscene materials over the internet. It is worth to take note of the fact that S. 98 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure was also amended to empower a magistrate to enter and search premises with a warrant and take possession of obscene materials. It was only after the passing of the Obscene Publications Act in England in 1959 (and perhaps owing to unsatisfactory and the widely criticized judgment in Lady Chatterly Lover‟s Case13) that the legislature saw a need for reform. Thus, a select committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Akbar Ali Khan in 1963, the recommendations made by the committee resulted in the passing of Act 36 of 1969, which brought about several significant changes in the provision. The 1969 amendments sought to bring clarity on the concept of obscenity.