rnet, but in teaching children what the difference between right and wrong is. Like the article says “In a free system such as the Internet, however, monitoring data from computers worldwide may be next to impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy the freedom that gives the Internet its value” (Knight Ridder 212). The second article is also pro internet freedom as well. Here is the article to clarify any misconceptions about this paper’s purpose: Like the Maytag repairman in the TV commercials, Congress is itching to fix something that isn't broken: the Internet and online services. As part of the vast new telecommunications bill, both House and Senate are on the brink of making it a federal crime to expose minors to naughty words or pictures in cyberspace. Double-clicking the ``send'' icon could become a dangerous act. Jail terms and huge fines would be slapped on anyone caught ``knowingly'' transmitting indecent material to minors, or to any freely accessible area of a computer network. Reports from the online front indicate that dirty talk and sexually graphic images are far less prevalent, or available, than the recent congressional lather on the topic would lead you to believe. In fact, the glossy mags behind the counter at any convenience store are probably more accessible to the young. So far, though, nothing has served to turn back this movement. Never mind that the Justice Department insists existing laws are adequate to combat illegal pornography, in whatever form. Never mind that, given the global nature of the Internet, any attempt to enforce a national standard of decency is doomed. Never mind that the whole push to set federal government up as cyber-censor runs contrary to the prevailing philosophy: Get intrus...
