Internet Pornography, the ACLU, and Congress Essay

the case was heard by a Federal court because there was a clear and legitimate question on

Cleaver mentions that although parents could monitor and restrict adult websites, there are still ways around them; this scares parents. Children may have the access to other computers, like the library or a friend’s house. The government has regulations that manages most mediums like, television, radio, video, but not the internet; this provides an idea for parents to argue about. Cleaver points out that searching tools should stop advertising ads to pornographic websites and chat websites for children should be monitored in case of child molestors. All the statements Cleaver provides are obviously seeking a reaction from parents to protect their child.

Scodro began the petitioners argument by saying, “Congress has crafted a comprehensive body of administrative and judicial procedures and remedies that are tailored specifically to combatting discrimination against older workers.” (OYEZ, Inc., 2013), to which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg produced the question, “What authority did the Seventh Circuit have to deal with the question under the Age Discrimination Act?” (OYEZ, Inc., 2013). It was later decided that the Seventh Circuit did not have any authority with the question brought forth. Scodro began to cite cases, but was soon shot down by the Court.

“The use of parental advisory labels, as with any system that aim to deny an individual the right to receive a form of communication, most certainly is a free speech issue” (Crowley). Censorship should be left up to the public because it is our freedom to decide to use our better judgment in deciding what we want to listen to, regardless of other’s opinions.

Pornographic material was another matter that was quite a debate in this case. Such a material became a debate as some argued that it may have an impact depending on the type of people it reached. Such a material was supposed to draw a distinction to show the varying nature of ideological or hardcore pornography. In this case there was a need for observing the moral values and doing things that are right and desirable to people in the community. Pornography was an obscenity that was more of an offensive idea to the moral standards of the community. Kingsley also was of the idea that adultery was desirable and right to specific people in some circumstances. The Supreme Court, however argued that this was not an obscene case, but rather it fell under the protected area of the constitution. In such a case this idea was a matter of ideological obscenity which the court need to stand clear about since it laid an imminent danger in the type of substance it

District Court was the original court of jurisdiction with district judge Weber. Junger filed his action to make a facial challenge to the Regulations on First Amendment grounds, "seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would permit him to engage in the unrestricted distribution of encryption software through his web site." Junger claimed that encryption source code is to be protected speech under the First Amendment. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, "holding that encryption source code is not protected under the First Amendment, that the Regulations are permissible content-neutral regulations, and that the Regulations are not subject to facial challenge on the prior restraint grounds." The decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court judge Martin and remanded stating: "The government “must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Id. We recognize that national security interests can outweigh the interests of protected speech and require the regulation of speech. In the present case, the record does not resolve whether the exercise of presidential power in furtherance of national security interests should overrule the interests in allowing the free exchange of encryption source

In the technological boom of the 1990s internet usage became became exponentially popular. This unprecedented development in technology led to people questioning the permissibility of online conduct. In particular, people panicked over the easy accessibility of adult content on the internet. Many parents and families were quick to worry about the possibility that their young children could view pornographic material with just a few clicks on a on the computer. As government officials became aware of families’ concerns, the legislative branch was quick to action. Finally in 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in efforts to protect minors for obtaining pornography online. However, distressed parents were not able to celebrate for long. The same day that Congress passed the CDA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the ban by taking it to court. The ACLU believed that the the CDA was far too broad and violated the first and fifth amendments by criminalizing wide-ranging elements of internet speech. On March 19th, 1997 the case was

COPA restrict commercial websites to post harmful judgment to minority. This law violated the freedom of speech on the Internet. According to the freedom of speech on the Internet, people have rights to give any speech on the Internet, including judge minority. The courts overturned COPA because it strongly restricted people’s rights to freely speech on the Internet.

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.

B. Dunham, informative, Rules for Media Threaten Free Speech, (August 2012) claims that Federal Communications Commission is planning on reinstating the revoked broad censorship rules. Dunham traced back to 1987 and found that the FCC unanimously voted that the censorship rule was a way that let the news prevent showing controversial issues or stories. Dunham was the NBC TV's legal counsel for 25 years hopes to inform the general audience of what is actually happening the our news hoping that people will vote to keep it revoked

Public access to the Internet is available at over 50% of the public libraries in the United States. Library patrons can access the limitless information available that the Internet offers. With this many libraries allowing access and many more each day adding access a new dilemma has been created. The dilemma is to support the American Library Associations Bill of Rights and the First Amendment Right of Free Speech or to limit access to the Internet by censoring or blocking out undesirable information, and thus going against the right of free speech. On July 2, 1997 the American Library Association (ALA) adopted a resolution affirming that "the use of filtering software by libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech violated the Library Bill of Rights." An earlier statment by the ALA titled "Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks" in January of 1996 stated "users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech."

The Internet is a global network of vast information. With a few clicks, an individual can have access to up to 200 million web-sites filled with educational and recreational information. The Internet is not regulated in anyway (Carnegie Library 1). It is accessible throughout the entire world from the North to the South, to the early morning sunrise and dark sunsets. Different ethnicity and backgrounds come together linked upon this network resembling a connection of one body in unity. Sadly, issues arise creating concern for users, focusing particularly on minors. Pornography is one of the inappropriate materials on the Internet for minors. This material is harmful to young impressionable minds. Pornography is tearing and

Some might question why, even in the face of legislative inertia, courts can be trusted to resolve difficult legal questions. This argument misses the mark. First, the Court should decide legal questions that are suited for judicial review and that result in workable rules to guide lower courts, regardless of outcomes. In other words, this test speaks to ensuring fairer processes, not favorable outcomes. As Professor Issacharoff states, an “individual or a group should be allowed to participate in political decisionmaking regardless of whether it will make any difference to the result.”

In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.

   At issue before the Circuit Courts has been the constitutionality of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in which Congress sought to modernize federal law by enhancing its ability to combat child pornography in the cyberspace era(Free Speech). There is a split in the circuit courts regarding this bill, and this essay will address the discrepancy.