SNET Internet : Features : Dr. Laura v. Simsbury: Winning Essay




	11/17/99

Should There Be Laws Restricting What Is On The Internet?

First place: Sara Miller, Henry James School, Simsbury

Ever since the Internet became a part of everyday life for thousands of people across America, there has been huge controversy surrounding it. Whether or not there should be laws restricting the Internet is one of the main disputes. When the Communications Decency Act, a bill restricting the Internet, was passed in Congress it was taken to the Supreme Court to be tested by the law. The Supreme Court deemed the CDA unconstitutional and declared it null and void. I agree fully with the Supreme Court's decision. Restricting the Internet directly violates the First Amendment of the American citizens of the United States. The Internet is another form of freedom of speech and press and should be treated no differently then any other written material. Every adult holds his own set of moral values and should have the freedom to restrict himself and not have other's values forced upon them.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no laws... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." if laws are passed that restrict what is shown on the Internet it will directly violate our First Amendment by restricting freedom of speech. We, the people of the United States, should be able to voice our opinions to the world. By censoring the Internet we would be no longer able to state our opinions openly because the "laws" would prohibit us from doing what we, as citizens of the United States, are granted the freedom to do. There is no denying that laws restricting the Internet would destroy the primary vision of our founding fathers when they granted us the freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment.

The people of the United States have the freedom to voice their opinions and publish them in books and newspapers without censoring. Granted, there are some exceptions (threats, selling drugs and alcohol to minors,) but the government doesn't censor what we say or write. The Internet is no different from newspapers or books. It provides published opinions and views accessible to everyone with access to the 'Net, no different from any book in a bookstore. Suppose laws were passed restricting what is on the Internet. That action would say to the people that the Internet is different from books and newspapers and is not a form of free speech. If laws were to be passed restricting what is on the Internet it would have to be proven that the Internet is not a form of freedom of speech or press. That in itself would be an impossible task.

Every person has a different set of moral values that they live by. Nobody's values are wrong, unfit or too strict. No one is perfect. People should be able to live by the values that they make for themselves because that is what they believe in. If laws were to be passed restricting what is on the Internet, the government would be telling the people that their values aren't sufficient enough for them to do what they think is right or wrong; that only the values created by the government are adequate. When the CDA was declared null and void by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Justices noted:

"Under the CDA, a parent allowing her 17-year-old to use the family computer to obtain information on the Internet that she, in her parental judgment, deems appropriate could face a lengthy prison term ... Similarly, a parent who sent his 17-year-old college freshman information on birth control via e-mail could be incarcerated even though neither he, his child, or anyone in their home community, found the material "indecent" or "patently offensive," if the college town's community thought otherwise."

The Justices summarized in one short paragraph that everyone lives by a different set of moral values. To force the people to live at the hand of a standard set by the government would be to cast the people of the United States back to the rule we were subjected to when we were colonies of England. Creating laws that restrict the Internet might seem trivial but in fact it would violate our First Amendment and throw away everything our country has come to stand for.

One of the main concerns people have about the Internet is what their children are exposed to, Undeniably there are things that children shouldn't have access to, but that shouldn't be up to the government to regulate. There are programs built into Internet hosts, such as America Online, which allow parents to regulate what their children have access to. Parents should use their own moral values to decide what their children are exposed to. If the government was to restrict the Internet so it was totally safe for children, who would decide where the line was drawn? In the CDA case, the Supreme Court states:

"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. As we have explained, the government may not 'reduc[e] the adult population ... to... only what is fit for children."

A brilliant observation by the Court Justices. To restrict the Internet to make it safe for children would be to violate the First Amendment. Parents have the resources readily available to them to decide, by their own set of moral values, what their children have access to. They should use those resources.

On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDA, an act restricting the Internet, was unconstitutional. They stated that it violated the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Had the CDA remained law it would have given the world a model of online censorship instead of a model of online freedom. During the trial the Supreme Court asked the question:

"Could a speaker confidently assure that a serious discussion about birth control practices, homosexuality ... or the consequences of prison rape would not violate the CDA? This uncertainty undermines the likelihood that the CDA has been carefully tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful material."

An editorial around the time of the case in Times Argus succinctly noted: "To obey this law, Internet users would have to avoid discussing matters routinely covered in books, magazines and newspapers. Who would want to drive on that kind of information superhighway?" The Supreme Court recognized that by restricting what is on the Internet they would be violating the First Amendment. Therefore they ruled the CDA unconstitutional and effectively declared it null and void.

The Supreme Court has already proclaimed laws as unconstitutional that were passed by Congress, restricting the Internet. If parents are mainly concerned about what their children are exposed to on the Internet then they shouldn't rely on the government to fix what they easily can fix themselves. Each person should guide, themselves, their children with their moral values because every person's moral values are different. The Internet is a source in which we exercise our First Amendment, the right of free speech. If there were laws restricting the Internet, who would decide where to draw the lines on matters that rest solely in the gray? No law restricting the Internet will ever be constitutional. For many years the Internet has been a subject of great debate. But one matter now stands clear: There shouldn't be laws restricting the Internet.

***

Please send questions or comments to web.editor@snet.net.

Previous columns are available.