[ Prev
| Next
| Index ]
Joanna L. Castillo,
Austin, TX, USA
"The Internet may be fairly regarded as a
never-ending world-wide conversation. The government may not, through
the [Communications Decency Act], interrupt that conversation. As the
most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion."
-- U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzall, in the opinion of a panel of
federal judges who issued an injunction blocking the government from
enforcing provisions of the federal telecommunications law.
Hoorah! The CDA has been struck down. Level heads have prevailed. What a pleasant surprise. Nevertheless, I'm keeping my 24 Hours in Democracy essay online. I'm sure there will be other challenges to the right to free speach on the Internet, so it's fitting that I keep this reminder in place. And, so...
I feel compelled to say something about the issue of Free Speech Online. Democracy and the Internet. The press and staged hysteria. Politicians who don't know what they're talking about...
First, some background. I'm 32 years old and have been "on the net" for 10 years or so. I've always found it to be a great source of information, entertainment, and stimulating discourse. I've been an active participant in Usenet newsgroup discussions and have been publishing on the web for over a year now. I've met all kinds of interesting people and have made several close friends through this wonderful medium known as the Internet.
What the people in Washington are trying to do to my backyard frightens me. What do they mean when they say "indecent"? I doubt very seriously that I've got anything on any of my pages that would be deemed "indecent" by the would-be net censors in Washington. But then, again, you never can tell. I maintain a web page for a rock band and we all know how indecent rock and roll music is, right? Maybe they can turn me...or at least part of me...off.
The idea of striking words and ideas from the net that are easily available in any good book store or library is frightening. Doesn't it scare you? What's next? The oh-so-responsible press (who never fail to scream "Freedom of the Press!" when they feel the least bit threatened) aren't paying attention. Instead, they're doing what they do best. They're sensationalizing the story. They're making it sound like people against the so-called Communications Decency Act (CDA) want nothing more than to stare at dirty pictures all day and force feed them to every child they can find. This is simply not true. It's not true for me and I'll wager it's not true for 99.9% of the people against the CDA.
In all the years I've been on the net, I've never accidentally stumbled across a site that was pornographic in nature. Yes, I know they're out there and I'm sure I could find one if I really set my mind to it. But, I've never set my mind to it. I'm simply not interested. The sites aren't jumping out and taking over my life. They aren't jumping out at the vast majority of people who are online. But that's not the story you hear on the evening news every night. Nope. Instead, we hear non-stop about pedophiles and kiddy porn. Stop and think about this for a minute or two. Isn't that the way the press reports on just about every story they choose to tell us? Do you believe any of those other stories? Why should you give the sensational slant they've taken on the Internet any more credence? How many times have you seen a report on the evening news that highlighted something good or cool about the net? How many times have you seen a report about something like the site maintained by the Smithsonian Institution? What? You've never seen one? Huh. Imagine that. I guess it's not newsworthy. It doesn't have good headline potential. Nope.
The press keeps harping on protecting children. The CDA will not protect children. Enterprising children can still get their hands on all the dirty pictures they want without ever going near a computer. It's not as if deleting the electronic dirty pictures will delete the ones printed on paper. Is it? If parents (with the help of local schools, churches, and other community organizations) can't pass their sense of morals on to their children...or can't supervise their forays onto the net...it's not the fault of the net. It's the fault of those parents. There are viable means of protecting children from porn and anything else parents deem "indecent" on the net. There are electronic means available at minimal costs...there are "Kid Friendly" Internet providers...and, then there's always the novel approach of hands-on supervision of children. I know...it's easier to just set them in front of the computer and get on with things but how much are you helping your children when you do this? "But," you say, "my child knows more about the computer than I do...I can't figure it out." Sorry...take an interest. Figure it out. It's your responsibility. You don't really want some bureaucrat in Washington deciding what's good for your children, do you? Reducing the level of discourse on the net to some nebulous and vague concept of "decent enough for children" is preposterous.
Please, take a minute and think about what's really at stake here and say "no" to the folks in DC. Post your own essay. Check out the 24 Hours of Democracy site for details.
I'm including some of the more interesting and informative links I've found on the subject below. Please stop and visit them.
Direct questions or comments about this area to:
joanna@mail.utexas.edu
Last updated: February 9, 1997