by Catherine Woods
Internet censorship is a hot issue at the moment. There are many different slants to this issue, such as - should hate mail against minority groups be censored? How do legal issues come into play regarding int+rnet censorship? Should government control censorship? Should we censor obscene material - what is obscene material? Should we censor articles on how to rape and murder women? Should we sensor articles on how to build pipe bombs? Should we censor websites that has inaccurate scientific research? Numerous questions are evolving around censorship.
Hate mail against minorities which involves written harassment of gays, stories of raping and murdering women, racism against blacks,etc. These are the harsh realities of the internet that detract from its purpose - access of information - good information.
Pornography is probably the most controversial issue where censorship is concerned, especially pornography where children are concerned. This involves both children having access to it or child pornography itself. These are serious issues that must be dealt with carefully. Now if I can access pornography - a child of just about any age can do the same. Answers to preventing children from the dangers of internet pornography are already in place. Software such as Nanny Net filters net material based on techniques that cut the connection if any word matches a list of "forbidden" words. Exonizer is another example of self-censoring software; however, it is really a spoof on internet censorship. Another idea suggested would be to have a rating council similar to the movie ratings such as "PG" or "X" rated for the World Wide Web.
Child pornography is one of the more frightening aspects of pornography on the internet. Pedophiles have found a new medium to access child pornography as opposed to purchasing it anonymously in the underground marketplace. By a allowing these pornographic websites to be free from censorship may entice pedophiles to access these sites and in turn ferret out these obviously disturbed citizens. Perhaps there is either software or hardware available to monitor their frequency to these websites. Further investigation of these individuals is warranted, especially situations where these people have close dealings with children.
There are numerous legal issues regarding the internet. The Communications Decency Act is an attempt to regulate and censor cyberspace but will the CDA impinge on our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of choice? How will this affect the content of the internet - will people be afraid of persecution because they submit dubious material to a website? Could institutions such as universities be liable to lawsuits because a student may have accessed an illegal website? To what degree will the government censor the net? It has been suggested government may have manufacturers insert a chip in PC's, telephones and televisions that may allow the monitoring of your phone conversations, television programs you watch, your e-mail and the websites you frequent.
If one can safely protect children against pornography with adequate software, then one may ask, what is the big deal of censoring the internet? The same information is available in bookstores, video shops or wherever there is a market should a person so desire to have access to it. We are not a captive audience when it comes to the internet. Accessing cyberspace is like listening to the radio or watching TV. If you don't like the program you turn if off or change the channel. The same holds true with the net - if you don't like the website - you don't go there - period! This may be a pat answer to the problem, however, it does go much deeper. What happens to the children or the impressionable adults who stumble on hate mail or x-rated pornography? If we censor the internet - will this sacrifice the powerful medium that it has developed into today? What percentage of the information in cyberspace could the human race do without? Careful consideration must be given to the possible answers.