The Controversy Over 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.

Another question that needs to be asked is, does censorship of cyberporn violate the first amendment of the constitution? The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Bill of Rights) The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that pornography and obscenity fall outside the first amendment. The Internet is akin to commercial network television, and government can constitutionally restrict T.V., so why not the Internet? Probably because adult conduct that includes sexually oriented conduct that has been considered by many to be immoral, has been protected by the First Amendment when it takes place in a private setting (Ford, Marrin, and Esposito 1).

He states that we cannot say, "the First Amendment is so sacrosanct that we must stand idly by while our children are inundated with pornography and smut on the Internet" (Exon 156).

The Communications Decency Act, as part of a longer Telecommunication Act, basically states that anyone who uses the Internet to make any “patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs” communication to someone under 18 is breaking the law and can be fined or jailed.[iii]

In today’s society an innumerable amount of discussions, disputes, and altercations have begun based on the broad matter of censorship and its many components. Censorship is commonly described as the process of controlling the information and ideas that circulate throughout a society and its inhabitants. Much of the world’s censoring transpires through the world wide web, popularly known as the internet, and is generally inflicted by the government and other powerful corporations who “contend with the issue on numerous occasions” (“Topic Overview” 1). Due to the topic being so controversial, both proponents and opponents accompany the longstanding argument. Those in favor of censoring the usage of

Alas for society, the Communications Decency Act was transcended by an “admittedly internet-illiterate congress” (Quittner).

In our contemporary society, pornography verses propriety has been a topic of debate for decades. Fortunately, child pornography is consistently labeled as obscene and possession of this type of pornography is criminal. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was signed into law in 1996 by then President Bill Clinton (Schmalleger, 2008, p. 235). A portion of this law criminalized the knowledge that obscene or indecent messages were being transmitted to recipients under 18 (Schmalleger, 2008, p. 235). However, the ACLU had to get involved challenging the law stating that one person’s perception of indecent may not be that of another’s; in other words, this would violate the First Amendment Rights of those without a moral compass. In 1997

The bill's sponsor said "sexual predators" are using public libraries to access pornography and "prey" on children there (Rogers). Porn sites tend to use popular keywords so that innocuous searches result in X-rated hits. Visitors to non-sexual sites are redirected to porn addresses or have explicit "pop-ups" placed on their screens. Worst of all, as John Dvorak reported in Forbes, porn operators have rigged their sites so they are impossible to escape, short of terminating your browser or shutting down your computer (Grace).

that some of the material that is on the net needs to be filtered and regulated. The word censorship is defined as examining any material and prohibiting what is objectionable, according to Webster’s II dictionary. Censoring the internet is a violation of the first ammendment rights of every citizen in the United States. There are two general truths that some people feel are attitudes towards censoring the internet. The first is that very few people admit to favoring it. The second is that no matter who you are, in a matter of minutes

You are at work and the phone rings. It is the school principal from the high school your daughter attends. He politely tells you that your daughter is being suspended from school and asks that you please come pick her up. After digging a little deeper, you find out that she is being punished for posting to the internet, a book report based writings of James Joyce. The reason for the suspension is not because the material was plagiarized, but because the content of the material was considered "objectionable" or "indecent" according to new standards mandated by the government.

Supporters of the this legislation include Enough is Enough and dozens of other non profit organizations that supports the legislative restriction of pornography on the Internet. All these organizations come under the broad description of "conservative" or "religious" groups. The number of these organizations runs in the dozens, of which few big and effective ones are Enough is Enough, the Christian Coalition and Senator Jim Exon's organization of like minded Senators.

For over forty-five years the Supreme Court has struggled with what Justice Harlan called “the intractable obscenity problem.” From the Roth decision in 1957 declaring obscenity to be unprotected by the First Amendment, to the current debate over the regulation of obscenity on the Internet, the issue of obscenity has frustrated and divided the Court. Discuss the evolution of the Court’s “standard” on obscenity from Butler v. Michigan to Miller v. California. What issues have arisen in the application of the Miller test to electronic expression? How has the Supreme Court addressed those issues in recent cases? Are you satisfied with the Miller test and the way in which it has been applied? Why or why not?

Individuals who oppose the use of censorship often argue that the liability for the information that children acquire lands in the hands of the media, but as a parent, they are responsible for supervising their children's media and literary use and access. Additionally, other controversies arise, such that adults become subject to the same blocking of materials, even ones protected by the Constitution, as minors and that “imposition of censorware would effectively force everyone to adhere to someone else’s morality” (Electronic Frontier Foundation 29). Many consider this a immense infliction on their individual rights even if it protects others from harmful materials. Nevertheless, the courts repeatedly ruled in favor of censorship to ensure the safety and security of the nation. Even if materials remain uncensored, access to them must be stringent and not openly available for anyone, young or mature, to stumble upon at any given moment. Many of today’s generation grew up surrounded by movies, articles, music, and advertisements centered around sex. Yes, children must learn about the subject at some point, but parents need to educate their children about the proper time and purpose for sex, not the media or literature of their daily lives. Again, if the people of the United States feel uncomfortable exploring the web, watching a movie, listening to the radio, or even opening a magazine, then the government needs to seriously reflection on its purpose and duties as the

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was written to stop and or target online obscenity and child pornography, however, these types of speech were previously illegal under other current federal laws. According to the CDA it is a crime to send, display or view any content considered to be that is considered “indecent” or “patently offensive.” Problem arises in the useable definitions of indecent and patently offensive. In the past, the CDA has banned and attempted to prosecute constitutionally protected speech on the Internet on topics like sexuality, reproduction, civil liberties, and human rights. There were multiple lawsuits and court cases after President Clinton signed this bill into law in 1996. Various online communication users and providers from political, educational, medical, artistic, and social value venues were all possible targets for prosecution under CDA.

   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.