rs that “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” other consumers over the net (Quittner 74). Most of the censorship plans not only violated the first amendment, but discriminated against people in other ways. People spend thousands of dollars on web sites and more money on servers and high-speed phone lines to become more accessible to the public. They make their money back and then some millions extra, but the government would have to shut down these businesses if they were aloud to censor because the product they sell is sex. Cyber porn businesses would be denied their right to free enterprise because their product is so taboo. It is loved and hated, but making them millionaires filling the demands of the public (Rosen 15). Many of the restrictions that would be put on adult sites due to censorship would be to have a credit card as a form of adult identification. This is clear discrimination against those adults with out a credit card. For whatever reason that an adult does not have a credit card, they should not be denied access to pornography. Restricting cyberporn to user that are of eighteen years of age or older discriminates against those who are mature enough to handle the information, but not legally of age. Seventeen-year-old kids are not much different in maturity than eighteen-year-olds. Movie theater ratings for pornography or indecent materials are NC-17, so why should the Internet not be also. Bruce Ennis speaks out against the CDA “... this court has repeatedly and unanimously ruled that government cannot constitutionally reduce the adult population to reading and viewing what is only appropriate for children. That is what this law does (Tipton 13).” But it is not just the government that is making laws that discriminate, the state are also. Virginia has made it illegal for state employees and college professors to access sexually indecent materials online. Georgia is trying to take away the reason th...
