Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous cyberporn censorship or free speech cyberporn censorship or free speech CYBERPORN: CENSORSHIP OR FREE SPEECH? The Internet is a worldwide network of computers and databases that has evolved rapidly in recent years. Tremendous amounts of information are transmitted and are fairly easy to obtain. Although in the past the information available was for the most part educational and business oriented, in recent years it has become much more diverse and questions have been raised as to the appropriateness of the content being viewed and consumed. Another issue is whether or not the government should take an active role in censoring it, especially when it comes to pornography, or cyberporn, as it is more commonly referred to when it is displayed on the Internet. Should cyberporn be censored? If so, who is responsible, parents or the government? Is Internet censorship the solution, or a violation of the first amendment? The citizens of a democracy must make these kinds of decisions while simultaneously maintaining freedom and responsibility on the Internet. Pornography on the Internet and the ease at which it can be accessed has been a very controversial issue, especially in the last ten years. The Internet was largely unregulated until 1996 when the Communication Decency Act, a portion of the Telecommunications act, was proposed. The Communication Decency Act, or the CDA, made it illegal to make or solicit any image or message that was “obscene” or “indecent”. (Wekesser 106), But how do we define terms with an ambiguity such as these. The Court in Miller-constructed the modern definition of “obscene”: The basic guidelines of the trier of fact must be must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court views obscenity as completely outside the scope of the first amendment’s protection, and the Government may regulate speech freely as long as the Miller test is fulfilled (Simon 2). Although many may consider pornography to be obscene, by this definition, there seems to be some ambiguity. Pornography is defined as: Writings, pictures, etc., intended primarily to arouse sexual desire. Another question that needs to be asked is, does censorship of cyberporn violate the first amendment of the constitution? The first amendment states, “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 of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Bill of Rights) The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that pornography and obscenity fall outside the first amendment. The Internet is akin to commercial network television, and government can constitutionally restrict T.V., so why not the Internet? Probably because adult conduct that includes sexually oriented conduct that has been considered by many to be immoral, has been protected by the First Amendment when it takes place in a private setting (Ford, Marrin, and Esposito 1). Additionally, the Internet is different because no single person or organization controls or administers the Internet. It exists because individuals have chosen voluntarily to use “common data transfer protocols” to transmit information (Simon 3). Another reason is that servers have the technology to screen out minors from these sites. Every site requires a credit card number, not only for payment, but also for insuring that the viewer is 18 years of age. But some argue that sometimes minors are not the issue. Many believe that much of the content on the Internet should not be viewed by anyone. Because pornography is designed for arousal and people have different tastes, the demand differs as well, and if there is a demand, a supply will follow. Not only does the Internet contain pictures of nude men and women, but also by images and ideas that cannot be found on the average magazine rack. Many websites are specially designed to display images of pedophilia (nude photos of children), hebephilia (nude photos of youths), and what researchers call paraphilia (“deviant” material that includes images of bondage, sadomasochism, urination, defecation, and sex acts with numerous animals) (Elmer-Dewitt 2). This kind of explicit material is growing in popularity every day. In 1996, BBS (adult-oriented computer bulletin board systems) cyberporn market leader, Thomas, who would not reveal his last name, discovered that he could boost sales by front-loading his files with pictures of sex acts with animals and nude prepubescent children, his two most poplar categories of porn. Another method he uses is depicting scenes with family members engaging in multiple sex acts. These are among his best sellers, accounting for ten percent of all downloads (Elmer-Dewitt 5). The BBS, whose operators are trying to lure customers into browsing their vast collection of X-rated material, charge fees anywhere from $10-$15 a month, which can be paid for with any major credit card. The five largest systems have annual revenues of up to $1 million. Many argue that it is a free market system and that there is a demand for it. Therefore they should be able to produce it. Feminist writer Andrea Dworkin says angrily, “the whole purpose of pornography is to hurt women.” Women are dehumanized and turned into sex objects and commodities when they show them finding pleasure in being raped or sexually abused. Catharine MacKinnon, a professor of law at the University of Michigan believes that women are doubly violated. She says that every time porn is made, the viewer is exposed to violence against women again and again. Anti-porn feminists such as these continue to support the censorship of pornography, especially hard-core and violent pornography. However, not all women agree. Some feminists agree that pornography has its place, and that by censoring it, feminism’s goals of liberating sexual expression are contradicted. Author Nadine Strossen argues that censoring sexual expression would do women more harm than good, undermining their equality, their autonomy and their freedom (Elmer-Dewitt 5). She writes that anti-porn feminists hold “a very fearful, very negative view of human sexuality, especially female sexuality.” Strossen and other feminists argue that furthering women’s rights will be achieved through fighting censorship, not pornography (Wekesser 137). Another problem that exists with censorship of cyberporn is that for technical reasons, it would be extremely difficult to stamp out images stored on Usenet newsgroups. The Net considers censorship as damaging and routes around it. There are also border issues to consider. Other countries would surely not appreciate the United States censoring material that they do not have laws against. So who are we to dictate what they can or cannot see (Elmer-Dewitt 5)? Statistics/View From A Technical Standpoint There is an abundance of porn online. In an 18-month study, researchers from Carnegie Mellon determined that of the 917,410 sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, short stories and film clips, 83.5 percent of the pictures were pornographic (on the Usenet newsgroups where digitized images are stored). It is also extremely popular and a huge moneymaker. According to the report, trading in sexually explicit imagery is, if not the largest, one of the largest recreational activities practiced by users. The Carnegie-Melon group conducted a survey, with the permission of BBS operators, and found individual consumers in 2,000 cities in all 50 states and 40 countries, including countries like China, where possession of pornography can be a capitol offense (Elmer-Dewitt 1). In recent years, the Supreme Court has struggled to prevent access by minors to speech that is harmful to them, while safeguarding the First Amendment rights of adults to engage in nonobscene speech. Generally, the court measures the Government’s interest in protecting minors from harmful speech relative to its accessibility. The provisions of the CDA were to prevent minors from obtaining access to pornography on the Internet. However, the Supreme Court ruled that two provisions were unconstitutional and that they failed to narrowly apply to minors, and could restrict the free exchange of ideas due to their vagueness. This note argues that any future attempt to regulate sexually explicit Internet transmissions must be drafted very specifically (Simon 1). Although the court appreciated the law’s purpose of protecting children from indecent material, it ruled that “the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproved benefit of censorship.” Justice O’Connor made this analogy, “that makes it a crime for a bookstore owner to sell pornographic magazines to anyone once a minor enters his store.” (Ford Marrin Esposito Et Al 1). Perhaps the following precedent has been adopted by our justice system, “When a statute has the effect of restricting adults to viewing only material suitable for children, it will be stricken down.” Due to several cases in the last few years, it seems that there has been a “parent panic” and many parents feel that there should be stronger laws to censor Internet pornography. Still, some believe that that would be unconstitutional, and that parents need to assume responsibility and censor the material themselves. With today’s technology, parents can buy software that can screen out any material that they feel is harmful to their child. Software created by the Silicon Valley firm, known as Surf-Watch, matches a potential Net destination to a proprietary list of forbidden sites. This program can also search for objectionable language. This program provides good protection and allows the individuals to make their own decisions as opposed to censorship. Another effective method of cyberporn deterrence is for parents to talk to their kids, and inform them about the explicit material that exists out there in cyberspace, and ways that they can avoid sexual predators (Wekesser 120). Many concerned parents are not satisfied with these suggested methods. They believe that they should not have to screen out harmful material. According to these people, “empowering” parents with this responsibility would advocate restricting the behavior of the “good guys” (families and children), while giving license to the “bad guys”, who litter cyberspace with pornography. It also strays from the time-honored role of the government to protect children from exploitation. For these reasons, many believe that burdening parents with censoring sites is philosophically wrong (Wekesser 123). We find ourselves posed with the following questions; should the Internet be censored? If so, who is responsible for doing so? I believe that it is ultimately the parents that are responsible for making sure that their children are not viewing harmful material. It could be argued that they cannot simply watch the child all day long, however there do now exist programs that can do it for them. We must remember that the Internet is a gigantic database of unlimited thoughts and ideas that are transferred day by day. It is not the Government’s place to regulate the free exchange of ideas. Parents need to be responsible for their own children instead of trying to impose their views on the rest of the world. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and press. It is true that anything viewed as obscene or indecent falls outside of the amendment, but how can we enforce a rule that few of us can even define? Just as children have the right to be sheltered from harmful material on the Net, adults have the same right in viewing pornography. One final thought; we, as citizens of a democracy must achieve a happy medium. I agree that much of the cyberporn that is attainable is inappropriate, especially when it involves children in even a remotely sexual manner. However, censorship is not the answer. We must find a way to practice freedom of expression while maintaining decency and assuming responsibility, as individuals, for our children. Bibliography: Works Cited Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1995) “On A Screen Near You: Cyberporn.” Time, July 1995 Ford, Marrin, Esposito, Witmeyer & Gleser, Can Congress Censor The Internet? L.L.P., 1996 Simon, Glenn E. (1998), “Cyberporn and censorship: constitutional barriers to preventing access to Internet pornography by minors.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v88 n3 p1015-1048. Wekesser, Carol. (1997). Pornography: opposing viewpoints. California: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Word Count: 2092
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.