Cindy Guerrazzi
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 10, 2006
Abstract
We are
living in an information age where millions have access to the Internet. Along
with good citizens, unfortunately there are also citizens who use the Internet to prey on minors. Because of this
threat to
minors, there have been challenges regarding the First Amendment that
have been
argued in the Supreme Court relating to censorship of communications
and
material on the Internet.
The United States Constitution states in the Bill of Rights under Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (
Millions of users have access to the Internet, and there is material on the web which may not be appropriate for minors. Some of this material may also make minors vulnerable to abuse by predators. Therefore, there has been controversy on how to restrict material and communications on the Internet.
Two cases that have been important regarding censorship on the Internet are the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 and “The Online Child Protection Act.”
The CDA was Congress' first attempt to make the Internet safe for minors by criminalizing speech on the Internet, but it was deemed unconstitutional because it served government interests and less restrictive alternatives were felt to be available. Then, The Online Child Protection Act was created to protect minors from sexual material on the Internet, but there are also problems with this bill and the bill was overturned in the Supreme Court.
Communication Censorship Challenges
The Citizens of Internet Empowerment
Coalition (CIEC) was assembled
in February of 1996 to challenge the Communications Decency Act that the “Internet
is a unique communications
medium, different from traditional broadcast mass media which deserves
broad
First Amendment protections.” (Free Speech Online,
2006, 1) The CIEC
filed a lawsuit on
The Supreme Court overturned the CDA
in July 1997 making
this a landmark victory. This was a first step in protecting our rights
since
the bill was limited and would have restricted freedom of speech on
what was
allowed on the Internet. I
agree that
parents should have a more active role in monitoring and protecting
their
children since different parents have different standar
The second important case involving
censorship is the Child
Online Protection Act which was argued in the Supreme Court in March 2004 and
was decided in
Contents
Reasons for Censoring Communication Online
As more and more content is available online (i.e., communication, entertainment, educational resources), it is also a gateway for offenders to exploit minors.
On Wired News, Jenn Shreve reports on a problem in her article “MySpace Faces a Perp Problem,” which details registered sex offenders with MySpace.com profiles. The company has been plagued by media reports saying that the site is a safe haven for sexual predators and a dangerous place for teens who post personal information. In response, the company has hired a new chief security officer and launched an advertising campaign promoting online safety (Shreve, 2006).
On BBC News, Penny Roberts reported
that Anthony Gray met a
14-year old boy from
From this report we can see that even in the courtroom there are thoughts as to how Internet content should be monitored because offenders take advantage of minors by befriending those who are or may be troubled.
Another publication “Internet Offenders: Traders, Travelers, and Combination Trader-Travelers” reports on traders (persons who traffic and/or collect child pornography online) and travelers (persons who engage in discussion with children online using manipulation to meet a minor in person for sexual purposes.) Alexy, Burgess, and Baker report 59.1% of the cases involved traders, 21.8% involved travelers, and 19% of the cases involved a combination of trader and traveler activities (Alexy, Burgess, Baker, 2005).
This is just a small example
regarding the exploitation of
minors through communication and other materials on the Internet, but
it shows
how important it is that minors not be exploited by predators and other
offenders on the Internet—hence the controversy/court battles
regarding
protection and how best to enforce communication controls.
Contents
Filtering software is available which will prevent minors from accessing pornographic and other inappropriate sexual material that is available online. Software packages allow parents to set time limits, filtering and blocking tools allows them to limit access to sites/words/images, outgoing content blocking regulates the content leaving the computer, and there are also monitoring tools included in some packages. Using these tools would help in protecting minors on the Internet, but unfortunately as reported by Mitchel, Finkelhor and Wolak in “Protecting youth online: Family use of filtering and blocking software,” only 33% of parents reported using some type of filtering software (Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, 13).
Another way to protect minors online
is to use the Internet
Content Rating system voluntarily when creating web sites or
information to be
posted on the Internet. The
Internet
Content Rating Association has a self-labeling system that is
applicable in any
language. Parents
can then use filtering
software to allow or disallow access to different web sites based on
the
information that is contained in the site label.
See the ICRA web site for further information
on labeling web sites/pages (http://www.icra.org).
Contents
There are ways that parents can protect minors online without affecting the right to free speech on the Internet. There is filtering software available that can be run on computers, and parents can take a more active role in determining when their minor can be online. Placing the computer in a public area in the home will also help in monitoring minors, so they are not as likely to go to questionable sites or talk with strangers online.
Parents and educators must also take
an active role in
educating minors on using the Internet,
especially
regarding posting personal information about themselves on web sites and
giving
personal information to strangers they meet online.
I believe the government should not be
involved by making laws which would limit speech on the Internet and
possibly
invade the privacy of others, but instead educate, apply filters, and
parents
should monitor minors on the Internet.
I
feel this will hamper offenders in manipulating minors on the Internet,
and it
is a better alternative than having the government place restrictions
on
communication on the Internet.
"
"Free
Speech Online."
"ACLU v.
Roberts, Penny. "Chatroom Sex
Controls Urged."
Shreve, Jenn.
"MySpace Faces a Perp
Problem." Wired News.
Alexy, Eileen, and Ann Burgess, and Timothy Baker.
"Internet
Offenders: Traders, Travelers, and Combination Trader-Travelers." Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 20, 77/1/2005 808-809.
Mitchell,
Kimberly, and Finkelhor,
David and Wolak,
Janis. "Protecting youth online: Family use of
filtering and blocking software."
Child Abuse & Neglect
297/1/2005 13.