to see (Lewis 114). However, there are problems with this law. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not successfully get the job done. Any child can still find material that is not meant for them to see. The act says that adults can communicate using any words they want to as long they are careful not to be accused of harassment. These words and phrases can seem sexual to one person, but just casual conversation to another. The laws that were made to protect minors from offensive material are very unclear. The term “indecent” that was used in items aimed at protecting adults as well as children is unconstitutionally vague (Sjoerdsma 301).Lewis says: It is also stupid, because it assumes that Congress can regulate an international computer network that is 99 percent private and that is composed of users who are more than 50 percent non-American. It assumes it can outsmart my two teenagers technologically, and it is offensive because it assumes that the Government can provide a better moral compass for my kids than my wife and I are already providing (84).Lewis feels that the best way to prevent inappropriate material from being viewed on the internet is to make all the users identifiable (Lewis 84). This idea may work for a while, but false identifications can be entered and if that is said to be impossible all anyone has to do is look at all the under twenty-one people who have id’s saying they are twenty-one. It would only be a matter of time before fake id’s would be available for internet use. Edwin Diamond said “It doesn’t take a magnifying glass to find hard-core pornography on the Internet...and since many youngsters can navigate circles around their elders on the Net, some adults are in near panic” (Diamond 30). Pornography is defined as material, films, printed matter,...
