With all of our technology and social advances, there are still problems that we cannot
seem to solve. We claim that the United States of America is a free country where every
person can have and express an opinion, regardless of whether or not the government
approves. In truth, our right to free speech is being taken away even as you read this
paper. Under the guise of "protecting our children from indecency", Senator Jim Exon
created the Communications and Decency Act, which was passed on February 1, 1996.
This act effectively takes away the right to free speech on the Internet. Worse still, it does
little to solve the problem of fighting "indecency". The CDA is a danger to the freedom of
America and there are much more effective methods of monitoring indecency then
legislation.
First let us take a look at the tool the good senator has created to protect our youth.
Originally submitted in 1994, the bill failed on it's first passing. In 1995, it was
resubmitted but in a weakened form. The new bill imposed heavy fines on any World
Wide Web Server that carried "restricted" materials. This bill also failed. It was not until
the
Cox-Wyden amendment was added on that the bill received any favorable support. This
amendment forbade government regulation of the Internet and relied upon the servers to
keep material which is "harmful to minors" off-line. The bill passed in the House, but
upon being handed over to the Senate, Exon "back-doored" and changed it again. He
changed the very specific phrase "harmful to minors" line and changed it to the much more
vague term "indecent".
The main problem with this act is the unclear wording, particularly the word "indecent".
We all have different perception as to what is obscene. For example, I thought the movie
Braveheart was one of the best films I have ever seen. My Aunt Carol thought it was sick
and nearly fainted from watching the fight scenes. Oddly enough, she loved another
movie that won a lot of Oscars, The Piano. I thought it was disgusting and should be
banded, because I don't think anyone should have to see a movie where Harvey Kitel does
a nude scene. The bottom line is that thanks to this law, all it takes for you to be
imprisoned or fined is for someone with a lot of power to label your work "a danger to the
community". Now, the next time that a politician does something someone disagrees
with, if he goes onto the Internet to voice his opinions, he could be jailed because of his
"obscene and dangerous" opinions. Not only might this law allow the innocent to be jailed
but will also be ineffective in stopping pornography.
The CDA makes no provisions for defining pornography or corruption. However,
the act does spend several pages describing who will punished if obscene materials are
found. In layman's terms, the way the punishment process works is like this. Suppose
that someone sends you a threatening letter through the usual U.S. Mail system. In this
letter, this person describes how they are going to kill you, your family, your friends, and
then goes on to detail all the gory, painful things he plans to do. And I'm talking stuff that
would make a Quintein Tarintino film look like "The Care Bears Movie." Now, if we
were to apply the CDA to the postal service, this sociopath could not be guaranteed
serving a day. Your mailman on the other hand would be subject to a $100,000 fine for
having delivered the offending letter. And if you were caught holding the letter, you
would be subject to the same punishments. This is true. If such a situation were to occur
in e-mail, your web server would be fined for deliver the message and you would be fined
for possessing it.
As we have seen, the CDA does little more than punish the offenders and set up extremely
opaque terms as to what the crimes are. The CDA is at best ineffective; at worst, it is the
greatest enemy to freedom our nation has fought since the Nazis in World War II. So,
what is the alternatives? The alternative is cheaper and more effective to legislation; parental involvement. The
best way for you to make sure your children don't see anything bad on the Internet is to
"surf the net" with them. You should be there riding the waves with him, steering him
away from the sharks of Penthouse and Hustler Online You should also teach them good
morals and teach them what is obscene. It is the parent's right and responsibility to
monitor what their children are doing, not the government's. And if the parents need help,
there is help available. There are the "Digital Mom" programs. These allow a parent to prohibit a child from
accessing certain web pages or from looking up certain words on a web browser. Most
Internet providers either sell these programs or give them away free to customers with
children. Even if you go into a store and buy one, they are all reasonably priced and have
a high effectiveness rating. Many decry these systems, saying that they will block certain
words that might prevent actual learning. A popular example of this is the story of how a
girl needed to do a report on Famous Political Family and how she couldn't access The
Official White House web page, because the word "couples" was on that web page, and
"couples" was assumed to have a sexual meaning. All attempts to contact the girl's
parents have failed. There are on-line ID check programs. These are computer programs which 95% of adult
web sites use. These programs might be likened to a bouncer at a nightclub. The program
requires that you give a credit card number in order to verify your age before you can get
in. These systems are also protected so that they are fairly hack proof. One hacker was
quoted in Time Magazine as having said "The Playboy Website has better security than the
military computers controlling missile launches". A frightening thing to think about should
some nut want to destroy national defense. But by God, at least my kids can't look at porno!
It all comes down to one word in the end; Freedom. Remember folks, if we let
the government start making decisions for us, then our lives in the future are going to be
like Brave New World. Except in our case, it will be a Scared New World.
Just think of it, ladies and gentlemen...A new Dark Ages where the common people are ruled over by a self-righteous
aristocracy who rule over "the slaves too stupid to look after themselves". Don't believe
me? Then listen to this quote from Donna Hughs, spokeswoman for Enough is Enough,
an anti-pornography group made of up crusading mothers.
"We can't expect parents to supervise their own kids, if they are too dumb to set
the clocks on their VCRs. They did not teach their children what is appropriate, so we
can only trust the American people as far as we can throw them." I can't help but wonder, where are Mrs. Hughs' children as she is out crusading for their
well-being? I mean, I wouldn't expect anything quite as drastic as that one episode of South Park where the parents leave the kids home alone while they go to New York to protest outside a network building. But I'm sure that every hour that these people spend chained to a mailbox outside the MTV offices, every minute they spend talking with Diane Sawyer about being a good parent, every second they spend on the Internet talking to their buddies about the mind control chemicals the liberals are putting in the water; All of that time would be much better spent talking to their kids about how their day was or helping them with their homework.
In closing, let me say that we are approaching a new age. An age where thoughts can be
sent across the world in a fraction of a heartbeat. But there are those who want to block
the dawn of the new age with the darkness of ignorance. And if the light of liberty is to
continue to shine into the 21st century, then we must do as Dylan Thomas said and "rage,
rage against the dying of the light!"
Return to the Main Rant page.