bject matter that they do not want their children to see. But sooner or later, their children will be exposed to everything from which they have shielded them , and then they will have left to deal with these shocking sights and sound in the moral fiber they helped them cultivate" (Rheingold n.p.). The Internet is definitely not the only medium for teenagers to find inappropriate material. Even if the Net does not have any, teenagers could also be exposed to indecorous material in many other places. For example, Allison and Baxter say that, "most authors using electronic media do not produce material that is any 'worse' than that available from news agents, video shops, or mail-order sources" (Allison and Baxter 8). On that account, if the purpose of censoring is to prevent minors from being exposed to indecorous material, not only the Net has to be censored. Censoring the Net will only eliminate one single medium for minors to find irrelevant material. Government censorship is not the solution to the problem, and alternatives measures that have same effects as censorship can be practiced. There are many alternative measures to government censorship which would prevent misuse of the Net and would have the same effects as censorship. According to Hentoff, "there are ways to protect children without the Act's intervention: blockage of certain areas, passwords, parental supervision. And adults--under protection of the First Amendment--can remain protected from government thought control. However, if the censorship bill is passed, the First Amendment may effectively be excluded from cyberspace" (Hentoff 1). It is very important for parents to provide moral guidance for their children, and parents should have this responsibility. Moral guidance is the foremost long-term solution to the problem. Rheingold believes that, "this technological shock (pornography on the Net) to Americans' moral codes means that in the future, Americans are going t...
