Sort Of Internet Regulation example essay topic

And a Touch of Censorship Tommy Jones was born into a small farming community just outside of Reno, Nevada, and has grown up to be like most other farm-boys. And similar to most other farm-boys, he has grown an affinity toward horses. At the age of twelve, more than anything else Tommy enjoys pictures of horses. The best place to find these pictures is on the Internet. Now comes the problem.

One day Tommy decides that it is all right to go on the Internet without his mom's help. And so, after getting online, Tommy finds himself at a search engine and types in the word horse in hopes of finding some pictures. After the search is complete, Tommy is faced with choosing the site that appears most interesting. Toward the bottom of the list he finds a catchy title in big capital letters that reads, ENTER ENTER ENTER HORSES WOMEN HORSES.

Being a typical curious twelve-year-old, Tommy enters the site. What he sees next completely blows him away: a naked woman sitting underneath a horse touching what Tommy believes to be the horse's penis. This throws Tommy's mind into a state of utter confusion, introducing questions and ideas that were not discussed in sixth grade sex education class or the birds-and-bees talk with his father. Unconsciously, Tommy begins forming moral values that will shape the rest of his life. Although it may sound extreme, this scenario is entirely possible. It is obvious that some sort of Internet regulation is necessary.

However, it is extremely difficult to censor all indecent sites without, at the same time, blocking those that are decent and respectable. The government and moral activists have attempted several times to create solid systems for restricting access to obscene, indecent sites, and each time these organizations have tripped over their tongues and created illogical, unintelligible, and unconstitutional solutions to the problem. One such blunder, the Communications Decency Act, was passed by Congress in 1996. This act invoked the term indecent as the standard by which the entire Internet should be censored. According to this act, hundreds of thousands of decent, harmless sites were censored. Among these were sites containing: Renaissance art (Virus de Milo, the Sistine Chapel, and Michelangelo's David), classic literature (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Scarlet Letter, The Jungle), news topics (Roe vs. Wade, AIDS, homosexuality), entertainment (song lyrics and movies), support groups (homosexuality, drug addiction, and religious tolerance), and health issues like AIDS, breast cancer, and safe sex.

(Louis Statt on, Is This What They Mean By Indecent? 12 Oct 1998) This act sounds preposterous to those on both sides of the issue, not to mention illegal, and was appropriately turned over by the Supreme Court later in 1996. Never the less, some sort of Internet regulation is still necessary. Critics of censorship disagree. These critics are forgetting, however, the regulations already in place regarding indecent material. At this time, it is illegal for any one under the age of 18 to purchase movies or magazines containing pornography or other indecent materials.

Why should the Internet be any different? Why should there not be regulations that completely restrict access to minors to any indecent sites The answer most commonly given? It is impossible. Critics of censorship argue that since the Internet is a global business, global regulations would need to be established in order to have any affect.

These critics are suffering from the same illusion that affected the politicians responsible for previous attempts at censorship. The only solutions these people can imagine are those that attempt to erase the problem in one quick, easy step. This is not the answer and never will be the answer. The solution should start at the bottom with each individual computer terminal. Instead of trying to keep people from posting indecent material, attempts should be made to keep the wrong people from viewing the posted material. This means a very slow painstaking process that the gung-hoe politicians and activists do not want to waste time on and critics of censorship are too closed-minded to see.

To the everyday person, however, this solution should fit like a glove. First of all, parents should be aware of the dangers the Internet contains and teach their children how to avoid these dangers just as they would for dangers present in the real world. Second, as Internet use becomes more common in school systems, these schools must develop acceptable-use policies which establish clear guidelines for Internet travel. The last step requires those responsible for the Internet connection, whether it be the parents or the school, to find appropriate blocking software. This requires the most time and patience, for some blocking software can deny access to reasonable sites, much like the Communications Decency Act, which can be worse that no restrictions at all. In the end, the solution just comes down to how much effort people would like to spend.

Since most people are content with either too much censorship or not at all, maybe this is the way to go. After all, it does not really matter if Tommy's life is completely altered due to disgusting material found on the Internet. Nor does it matter if beautiful works of art, literature, and important information on health and social issues can be censored. Maybe in the end it just comes down to how much effort people will not spend? In the words of the Internet generation, oh well, who cares, it's all good.