March 23, 1995
As the internet hits mainstream America, legislators and anti-pornography groups are pressuring internet service providers, including universities, to remove access to controversial newsgroups and World Wide Web (WWW) sites containing lurid stories and/or sexually explicit pictures. Carnegie Mellon University was one of the first colleges to attempt restriction of access to the controversial groups in November 1994, but eventually backed down after students and faculty protested.
Many commercial providers, including America Online, have already bowed to lobbyists and have limited newsgroup access to their subscribers. On Jan. 6, America Online President Steve Case posted a warning to members that the FBI has arrested over 250 people for alleged on-line distribution of child pornography.
Even though the percentage of people using the internet for illegal purposes is estimated to be very low, the solution lobbyists propose is extreme. Sen. Jim Exon, D-Neb., has recently introduced vague legislation which will fine and/or imprison people for transmitting obscene material over telecommunication devices. This local solution is not feasible because the internet not only links all 50 states, but over 100 countries with each region having its own set of mores and laws.
Graphical WWW browsers, such as Netscape, which allow users to view pictures, have popularized the transmission of digital images. Since the distribution of images containing sexual content is a criminal offense in certain states, a person downloading a nude picture from a liberal state, such as California, then transferring the file to a conservative state, such as Georgia, may be charged with "the distribution of pornographic material across state lines" punishable by fines and/or jail.
The government should not act to restrict the internet. From a philosophical viewpoint the internet can be compared to an electronic collective unconscious of the world community. The network does not belong to the U.S. government, but belongs to the people who participate in it. The decentralized nature of the network provides a platform for all people of the planet to partake in free speech and trade information. I fear that the restriction of access to certain parts of the net marks the beginning of widespread government control which will stifle the global exchange of ideas and deny most members of society the access to certain information.
Who is to judge what is obscene and what isn't? Will art, religion and philosophy sites deemed socially unpopular be the next target? I do not deny that people abuse the internet and waste space with flame wars, tasteless images and so forth. However, I feel that censorship by the government will be a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." I can accept some of the garbage that is transmitted over the net because I feel there is such an abundance of knowledge and useful information that people are sharing with the world and this greatly outweighs any negative aspects. For these reasons, and in the interest of upholding the First Amendment, the internet should remain decentralized and uncensored.