Software Better Than Law In Policing Internet
by


This first appeared in the
North Hills News Record

Last week, the Supreme Court called off the traffic cops on the information superhighway. (Read the ruling!)

In a 7-2 decision, the high court struck down the Communications Decency Act, the Clinton administration's attempt to control some of the rampant freedom on the Internet. My faith in those nine justices to interpret the Constitution has been somewhat renewed.

The CDA, a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, made it a crime to transmit "indecent" material to minors. Violators could receive up to a two year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

Supporters of the CDA claimed they only wanted to protect minors from so-called questionable Internet content. Cursing the evils of Cyberspace, they demanded that Congress back the CDA even though it was a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

To understand why, you have to know how the system works. Financial aid is granted according to how much a student's tuition and fees exceed his or her "expected family contribution." To qualify, a family's income, assets, number of children, etc. are taken into consideration. Colleges and universities couldn't ask for a more perfect set-up.

Americans are funny creatures. As much as we claim to love freedom, it's amazing how willing we are to give it away. Normal, rational people who wouldn't dream of allowing anyone tell them what they can and can not say are quick to impose the strong arm of government when they are offended. But there is no middle ground in the first amendment. Either you support someone's right to the freedom of speech or you don't.

If student aid truly made a college degree more affordable, then you should be able to buy a college education at Wal-Mart prices. Instead, tuition prices have been increasing twice as fast as the rate of inflation.

With the exception of a few wackos, no one wants children exposed to pedophiles or pornography. But defining "indecent" is difficult at best. And the Supreme Court attacked the CDA with a vengeance.

Justice John Paul Stevens destroyed the government's ridiculously weak arguments for allowing it to control what sort of speech could be transmitted over the Internet. Stevens called the CDA unconstitutional, vague and punitive. The law would enforce a de facto "heckler's veto," effectively squelching any speech with a single complaint.

Since most people still don't understand the workings of the Internet, a point needs to be made. Pornographic material doesn't magically appear on a computer screen no matter what the darling little cherubs say. You have to see it out. And there are widely available, effective and inexpensive software programs that parents can use to limit and monitor their children's online content selection. The court ruled that this type of technology is more effective and far less intrusive than government regulation.

The Internet definitely is driving a lot of people nuts. In just a few short years, it has rapidly decentralized long standing knowledge and power structures. For years, information about national and world affairs came from a limited array of sources: the Big Three networks, a few national radio syndicates and several large newspapers and news services. Because of the Internet, that has changed.

The Internet has also given ordinary citizens the power to avoid taxes, tariffs, and stifling regulations imposed by governments. All that unmonitored, unregulated and unrestricted activity makes a lot of people nervous. But the Internet has flourished because of it. Cyber space may be our last bastion of liberty. Let's work to keep it that way.

Companies that provide software to block access to Internet sites: