To cite an instance, the most infamous computer terrorist, Kevin Mitnick,
waived extradition and is now in jail in California, charged with computer fraud
and illegal use of a telephone access device. The list of allegations against
him include theft of many files and documents, including twenty-thousand credit
card numbers from Netcom On-Line Services, which provides thousands with access
to the Internet (Warren 52). Americans have to come up with a solution in order
to keep children away from inappropriate material and to prevent misuses of the
Net. One reaction to this inapplicability has been the Censor the Net approach
(the censorship bill), which is being debated worldwide. First, the meaning of
Censoring the Net must be explained. Simply, it is the banning of offensive
material. To see if the government should censor the Net, it is imperative to
list the advantages and disadvantages of the censor the Net approach. The
advantage of government censorship is that ideally, children and teenagers could
be kept away from unsuitable material. However, many experts have pointed out
that government censorship is not possible. Howard Rheingold, the editor of the
Whole World Review, observes that, the 'censor the Net' approach is not just
morally misguided. It's becoming technically and politically impossible
(Rheingold n.p.). First, it is not fair to exclude the freedom and damage the
atmosphere of freely expressing ideas just for the safety of children.
Corn-Revere, an expert on Internet censorship at the Howgan & Harson Law Firm,
points out that the purpose of indecency regulation is to keep adult material
from falling into the hands of kids. When he first introduced a similar bill
last year, Senator Exon said he was concerned that the Information Superhighway
was in danger of becoming an electronic 'red light district' and that he wanted
to bar his granddaughter's access to unsuitable information (Corn-Revere 24).
It is clear that Senator Exon introduced the bill to prevent minors
from viewing unsuitable material on the Net. In addition, Meleedy, a computer
science graduate student at Harvard University, questions that if the Internet
makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder
Congress wants to censor it? (Meleedy 1) Allison and Baxter assert that, the
most significant new properties of the Internet media are the diversity of
information sources and their ability to reach almost anywhere in the world.
Authors range from major corporations such as IBM and Disney to school children
(Allison and Baxter 3). As predicted by Corn-Revere, At the very least, the law
will force content providers to make access more difficult, which will affect
all users, not just the young (Corn-Revere 70). Censoring the Net is technically
and politically impossible; it will damage the atmosphere of freedom and free
idea expression on the Net; therefore, government should not encourage
censorship. Most Internet users are enjoying their freedom of speech on the Net,
which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the United States.
According to Corn-Reverse, it has been suggested that, 'on-line systems give
people far more genuinely free speech and free press than ever before in human
history' (Corn-Reverse 71). Rheingold predicts that Heavy-handed attempts to
impose restrictions on the unruly but incredibly creative anarchy of the Net
could kill the spirit of cooperative knowledge-sharing that makes the Net
valuable to millions (Rheingold n.p.). The freedom of idea expression is what
makes the Internet important and enjoyable, and it should not be waived for any
reason. Additionally, only a very small portion of the Net contains offensive
material, most people do not use the Net for pornography. Caragata from
Maclean's magazine observes that, it is pornography that stirs the most
controversy. But while there is no doubt that pornography is popular, it amounts
to a trickle compared with everything else available on the Net (Caragata 51).
The Net is mostly being used for communication and information exchange, and
only a tiny portion of the Net contains pornography and other offensive
material. It must be understood that censoring the Net is technically
impossible. According to Allison and Baxter, in principle, it is impossible to
monitor all material being transmitted on the Internet. Considering the
difficulties with international boundaries, a licensing system faces many
obvious practical hurdles (Allison and Baxter 6). As described by Allison and
Baxter, Any good Computer Science graduate can create a completely secure
encryption system for concealment purposes. The material can even be disguised,
for example hidden 'inside' a perfectly innocuous picture (Allison and Baxter
6). Therefore, if a person wants to publish offensive material, he/she can
design a formula to change the material with respect to a key, and secretly tell
other users what the key is. In this way, they can retrieve the same material
and pass through the government censorship. While people are concerned about
Internet pornography, it should be recognized that pornography is sometimes
legal; for example, pornography is legal in video and magazines. Therefore, it
is inconsistent to ban the Internet equivalents. According to Rheingold,
Citizens should have the right to restrict the information-flow into their
homes. They should be able to exclude from their home any subject matter that
they do not want their children to see. But sooner or later, their children will
be exposed to everything from which they have shielded them , and then they will
have left to deal with these shocking sights and sound in the moral fiber they
helped them cultivate (Rheingold n.p.). The Internet is definitely not the only
medium for teenagers to find inappropriate material. Even if the Net does not
have any, teenagers could also be exposed to indecorous material in many other
places. For example, Allison and Baxter say that, most authors using electronic
media do not produce material that is any 'worse' than that available from news
agents, video shops, or mail-order sources (Allison and Baxter 8). On that
account, if the purpose of censoring is to prevent minors from being exposed to
indecorous material, not only the Net has to be censored. Censoring the Net will
only eliminate one single medium for minors to find irrelevant material.
Government censorship is not the solution to the problem, and alternatives
measures that have same effects as censorship can be practiced. There are many
alternative measures to government censorship which would prevent misuse of the
Net and would have the same effects as censorship. According to Hentoff, there
are ways to protect children without the Act's intervention: blockage of certain
areas, passwords, parental supervision. And adults--under protection of the
First Amendment--can remain protected from government thought control.
