-- .-. .-----. .---. ---------------------------------------------------- | |N | | | |Y | O |PINION : MY VIEW ON COMPUTERS AND THE FUTURE -- `-' `-'-'-' `---' ---------------------------------------------------- Net.Censorship: Electronic Book Burning Gregory Lam March, 1996 On Thursday, February 8th, 1996, the fate of the international computer network, known as the Internet was sealed. On this day, President Clinton signed a telecommunications reform bill which included a law that imposes on the Internet, its users and service providers, sweeping restrictions on online speech and conduct. This particular measure, the Exon Communications Decency Act (CDA), infringes on people's personal freedoms, all in the name of wiping out "indecent" material on the net. This piece of legislation states that fines of up to $250,000 and jail sentences of two years will be served to anyone who makes text or images, that the Congress deems indecent, available in an online public forum. Such forums range from newsgroups, mailing lists and file FTP sites to WorldWide Web (WWW) pages. The CDA will have serious repercussions for all Internet users around the world. However, it is equally as ineffective as it is wrong, and is a sad example of the evils of censorship. First, it violates the freedom of the electronic press and bypasses the First Amendment of the United States. The Internet is currently an open forum which allows people to share their opinions, no matter how crazy they may appear, in an environment which promotes objectivity and understanding. Content is often judged by its quality and value, not political correctness. Yet this Act turns this open-minded global electronic community into the most heavily regulated medium in the United States. Internet columnist K.K. Campbell angrily states that this bill will "reduce the contribution of US citizens to the global Internet debate to a level acceptable in a Disney movie." Not only are these restrictions stifling, but no society has the right to enforce them. The Internet is to be interpreted as a separate, anarchistic society consisting of disembodied voices, and no country should be allowed to control it or its content. Nevertheless, Internet users are being treated like second class citizens and are forced to abide by the wills of an external authority, a conservative government. Most of the voting senators have not the slightest inkling what the Internet is; many more do not know how to even operate a computer beyond basic word processing functions. What gives them the right to control the fate of the Internet? Apparently, the person responsible for the CDA, Senator Exon, simply showed obscene images downloaded from the Internet, painting the network as a sleazy haven of evil. Since no one wanted to be branded as a pornography sympathizer, the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority. Furthermore, attempting to suppress information on this global network, a domain which promotes the exact opposite, is an exercise in futility. Tailored for broadcast media, this bill serves little purpose but to enrage the cyberpopulace. Being an interactive medium, the Internet, which is simply a glorified telephone network for computers, does not tolerate bans on material. Since control is decentralized, information is ubiquitous and can be accessed by anyone from anywhere. The US government would have more success banning swearing in public. Clifford Stoll, a veteran computer specialist who earned his fame tracking a German hacker stealing military secrets, affirms the Internet will simply interpret censorship as damage and reroute around it. In fact, this sturdy network was originally designed by the US military to remain functioning even after a post-nuclear holocaust. Censorship is a piteously small challenge compared to worldwide destruction. This bill is also poorly designed. The Exon CDA primarily works by banning sites which contain 'naughty' words, such as "breast," "damn," "sex," and "piss." Immediately, this bill shows its flaws. If this ridiculous procedure is implemented, - as it already has been for the service provider America OnLine - women can no longer publicly talk about their experiences with breast cancer, as "breast" is defined as an offensive word. The Bible, the play Macbeth, the newsgroup alt.sexy.bald.captains (which merely discusses Captain Picard of Star Trek fame), and anyone living in Middlesex, England will be similarly censored because these materials contain the word "sex." This legislation also works by fining the companies who house offending Internet sites. This is ludicrous, as it is analogous to charging customs officials for 'allowing' illegal contraband into the country. In any case, there is very little extremely obscene material on the Internet to begin with. For example, there is as much pornography by percentage on the net as there is in a bookstore. The recent furor is mostly hyperbole and hysteria by people unfamiliar with the new medium; people have been crying for censorship since the introduction of the Gutenburg press in the 13th century. Most indecent material is usually nothing more but colourful language. Furthermore, who is to say what is decent and indecent? Artist Pablo Picasso himself once said, "Art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art." A large quantity of the to-be banned material is readily available on television and in libraries and bookstores. The Internet itself regulates obscenities with respect and opinion. No one is forced to view indecent material, and anyone can comment on it. For example, historian Ken McVay from British Columbia has effectively battled Holocaust deniers for many years by posting authentic historical documents. His rebuttals utterly destroy the credibility of their poorly researched racist literature. German government bans on hate material, however, has inadvertently made racists free-speech martyrs and their propaganda proliferate faster than before. From now until the end of February, hundreds of thousands of Internet users will protest this Act by draping their WWW homepages with black backgrounds. Over two dozen lawsuits, spearheaded by civil liberties groups, have sprung up to fight the law's unconstitutional nature. They all believe no government should be allowed jurisdiction on Internet material, and that this electronic form of book burning is worse than all the racists, bigots and pornographers put together. The draconian Communications Decency Act threatens the very existence of the Internet as a vital means of free expression, education, and political opinion, and only builds walls around problems instead of solving them. [imo] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPDATE: As of June 12th, 1996, after three months of deliberation, judges in Philedelphia have agreed to block the CDA - for now. The battle may have been won, but the fight for free speech is far from over.[imo] Bibliography "Computer conundrums." The Globe & Mail. 19 February 1996, pp. A17. Campbell, K.K. "Censorship and the Net." The Toronto Star. 28 September 1995, pp. J1 & J5. Campbell, K.K. "Censoring the Net a pointless pursuit." The Toronto Star. 8 February 1996, pp. G3. Campbell, K.K. "Orwellian echoes from south of 49." The Toronto Star. 22 February 1996, pp. G5. Lemonick, Michael D. "The Net's Strange Day." Time Magazine. 19 February 1996, pp. 44. Smith, Gina. "Peeper Madness." Popular Science. January 1996, pp. 44. Templeton, Brad. rec.humor.funny illegal? We sue the government to save it! [computer file]. ClariNet Communications Corp., 1996. Templeton, Brad. Editorial Policy on Offensive Jokes. [computer file]. ClariNet Communications Corp., 1996. Communications Decency Act Protest. [computer file] Voters Telecommunications Watch, 1996. (C)opyright Gregory Lam, All rights reserved. You are allowed to copy this document sans charge on the condition none of it is altered or used without proper bibliographical references. === G R E G O R Y L A M ============================= Fight the CDA! ==== -=Toronto, Ontario=- {~._.~} ("*_*") gregory.lam@ablelink.org ___/|___\_______ ( Y ) ( v ) am535@torfree.net ( /-\_____\___/-\) ()~*~:()():~%~() quanta@sizone.org ======\_/o--------\_/======(_)-(_)==(_)-(_)===============================