oth these arguments, however, are quite irrational. A much more logical view by Dyrli feels that no matter what we try to restrict, there will always be a way to circumvent these (18). The views given by Mary D’ Amico seem to be the most logical in a way to deal with the problems of filtering. D’Amico feels that the parents of a child should be the filtering software. Systems administrators shouldn’t be the ones deciding what a child can and cannot see. The parents should be the deciding factor in just what is right and what is wrong. Another problem that has been plaguing the Internet since it’s first days is that of freedom of speech. In fact, freedom of speech over the Internet is probably one of the biggest problems. The Internet has become a place where anyone can paste anything they want to say to millions upon millions of people and yet still have their identity somewhat protected. Just like any other topic, there are those that agree with the freedom of speech argument and those that oppose it. A recent article in Network World discussed how congress has tried to fight these problems. It appears that they want to initiate something called the Communications Decency Act II. This act would outlaw commercial content on the Internet that is unsuitable or harmful to minors. Two civil liberties groups, however, are at the frontlines fighting against what they say would hamper the freedom of expression we now have on the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Democracy and Technology are openly opposed to the bill. The ACLU is known already for fighting the first Communications Decency Act (4). Another article by D’Amico agrees with those statements made. There seems to be a general concern about the role a government would play in the rating process. The article gives reasoning that the government shouldn’t be responsible for what people see. Restrictions placed on such things a...
