to kids and families to travel.” Outlined in The Communications Decency Act, Congress would have the power to “take action to protect children from obscenity, pornography and indecency in areas like radio and telvision broadcast where youngsters have unique access.” These actions are commendable in that they are desirable goals for society to accomplish and aspire to, however these precautionary steps are unneccesary. This country already has abundant legislation saying clearly what is acceptable and what is not. There is no need for more regulation in regards to the internet. One must simply impose the current laws upon the lawbreakers residing on the world wide web. True, the current system is not set up to handle criminal action in cyber-space, but resources could and should be redirected at enforcing these laws effectively in this virgin landscape. A slow, well thought out and planned process is the next best step in an attempt to make the internet an acceptable place for all.In the last ten years that the internet has been available to people of all ages, have the citizens and government of this country completely overlooked the subject of censoring the internet? The answer is no. In the 1993 case of The United States vs. Thomas, Robert and Carleen Thomas were indicted on twelve counts for administering a BBS (Bulletin Board Service) that made available over 14,000 sexually explicit images, as well as other services, to anyone paying the fifty-five dollar membership charge. The charges ranged from child pornography, which were unsubstantiated, to knowingly violating interstate commerce laws for the distribution of “obsecene” material. This example proves that the current laws provide an adequate means of prosecuting lawbreaking individuals on the internet. If the Communications Decency Act, which was an ammendment to protect children from obscene materials, had stuck, the American people ...
