first amendment for restricting the rights of adults (Rosen 17). When congress tried to pass a law making it a crime to let make indecent material be available to children on the Internet, Justice Paul Stevens wrote, “It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults (Tipton 12).” So far they have not figured out a way to be able to regulate cyberporn and the Internet with out violating the constitution. If the government had successfully regulated cyberporn, there is no telling where the censorship would stop. Government tried to regulate adult-oriented words with the CDA. This would mean that topics such as safe sex could not be discussed over the Internet. This is not protecting children, but depriving them of material that could be very useful and valuable (Bray C7). Many of the proposals would have outlawed information including AIDS, Pulitzer Prize-winning plays, museum exhibits and, the Vanity Fair cover showing a picture of pregnant Demi Moore (Levy 20). Another reason they should not regulate cyberporn is the overwhelming number of volunteering business people making millions of dollars. Many of strippers have decided to stop working at strip joints and start their own web sites because of the safety it offers. Right now the Cyberporn business is in demand, so why not give the people what they want? Some customers spend anywhere from $150 to $6,000 a month just to interact on videophone sex web sites (Rafter A1). Cyberporn has opened up a whole new job rhelm, in which our economy can not say no to (Rosen 15). “There are means of controlling material that parents do not want their kids to view (Levy 21).” Several devises already exist for parents that will help them filter out what they do not want their children to see. Surfwatch, a softw...
