There is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet, and despite the stereotype, most of it is educational and beneficial. According to the Feminists Against Censorship , less than ten percent of Internet traffic is related to pornography, and most of this discussion takes place in commercial bulletin boards that charge fees and require a proof of age; it is very unlikely that a child, or their parents for that matter, would accidentally stumble upon one of these pages. This fact does not dissuade censors from insisting that sex and obscenity abound on the net, and that pages concerning these subjects must be removed in order to "protect" children. However, these people have forgotten that it is already illegal, on the Internet or anywhere else, to display obscenity of any kind, and therefore unnecessary to create new laws to govern obscene subject matter on the net. Some people also fear that certain information that is available on the world wid web could prove to be a risk to society; censors believe that material on hate groups, violence, explosives, and the like will influence impressionable minds. This argument is not only illogical, but it has become a scapegoat for poor parenting and society's weak morals. Knowledge is not dangerous, but a corrupt mind is. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has already taken action towards censoring the net.
The Communications Decency Act, a bill proposed in the United States that would regulate the information found on American Internet pages, has been attacked by many anti-censorship and civil rights groups. The Blue Ribbon Campaign, a campaign devoted to ensuring freedom of expression on the net, states, "By invoking the overbroad term 'indecent' as the standard by which electronic communication should be censored, Congress has insured that information providers seeking to avoid perceived liability and criminal prosecution will close the gates on anything but the most tame information and discussions...". Unlike obscenity, there is no particular legal definition of indecency, making "indecent" far too vague a term to describe material that should be censored. "Indecent" topics could range from informative pages about sexually transmitted diseases to Michealangelo's "David" to the dangers of illegal drug use, as well as about anti-Christ literature or bomb construction. But for everyone person who believes they are inappropriate, there will be another person who believes they are well within the boundaries of decency. However, even if a decision were reached as to what is and is not indecent, censoring the net would still infringe on our freedom of expression.
The freedom of speech is guaranteed to Canadians in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Part two of the Charter states, "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication...". Even if Internet regulations were established, to impose such "indecency" standards on the public would not be possible without compromising the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and violating our right to freedom of expression. Yes, there are some Internet pages with objectionable and obscene material on them, but the price we pay for freedom is that we must endure it’s abuse.
Government censorship of the Internet not only restricts valuable information and violates our freedom of speech, but it is impossible to accomplish. According to Steven Levy, "In the digital age, though, there's a high cost from attempts to silence the pornographers and other speech offenders. Requiring network providers to monitor what goes our over their systems is unworkable - it's like asking the phone companies to monitor what is uttered in billions of conversations". It is not realistically possible to censor every obscene and indecent piece of information on the Internet since a good part of the obscene information is exchanged in direct on-line conversations, as well as on the millions of homepages found on the net. To expect the government to monitor every page and conversation for indecency is absurd. And even if a law was passed in Canada to outlaw inappropriate material, this law would not affect information originating in other countries such as England, or Japan.
Simply put, government censorship of the Internet is wrong and it will not work. Furthermore, although much of the debate surrounding Internet censorship involves protecting children from objectionable material, it is not the government's responsibility to censor what adults may view in order to protect children. Fortunately, that does not mean that concerned parents must refuse to let their children access the net. There is software available that blocks objectionable net sites from being viewed, as well as programs that will record which sites are visited. But ultimately, the only sure way to protect children from obscenity is through parental guidance. As Barlow stated, "If you don't want your children fixating on filth, ... better step up to the tough task of raising them to find it as distasteful as you do yourself."
Get your own Free Home Page