next section

previous section

interactive activity

table of contents

return to home

related links

post your thoughts

With any new media, be it the printing press, the television, or the computer, comes a new way of presenting information to the  public.  The internet has brought information to those who never could have accessed it before (or would not have thought to access it).  Because of the internet, medical information is more widely available (an example), people all over the world can communicate in a matter of minutes, and families can research their heritage from the comfort of home.  Because of the internet, hate groups are able to recruit children as young as 9 or 10 (Yahoo News, 5 July 99), kids have access to instructions on building pipe bombs, and pornography has found a new way to quietly meet more and more people.  Information is a powerful tool, indeed.

Despite valiant efforts, America Online (AOL), a popular internet service provider,  has been plagued by its efforts to censor its services for its family oriented clientele.  The company has drawn business by offering options to help parents censor what their kids see online for almost four years now.  This feature has been very successful, helping AOL stock soar and overcoming severe access problems in the mid-nineties.  Still, in an effort to monitor services more closely, AOL prevented users from speaking Spanish in a forum - a bulletin board like area where subscribers may publicly post messages or reply to others.  AOL accepts responsibility for everything that appears in its forums and monitors them via volunteer support staff (often, volunteers are rewarded by free hours).  Since AOL had few volunteers who could speak Spanish and monitor the boards, they simply deleted any message containing Spanish.  When subscribers posted messages, in English, to rally support against AOL in a civil liberties suit, these notes were also erased (CNET).  AOL reversed this decision about a week later and Spanish is now allowed in forums.

Similarly, when AOL attempted to crack down on obscene chat rooms and bulletin boards, they simply deleted all groups containing certain words (for a list of these words, visit AOLsucks.com:  Forbidden Words).  One of these words, was the term "breast".  Unfortunately, while this may have filtered out groups that discussed the more obscene parts of the female and male anatomy, it also deleted a long-standing group of breast cancer survivors, many of whom used the list to cope and for medical information.

So, outside of America Online, what has been done to monitor the internet?  Attempts have been made to censor the internet.  In 1995, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA)[partial text], attempting to impose penalties on those that published obscene pages on the internet where they are available to the general public.  This act included many provisions, some of which covered telecommunications company buy-outs and anti-trust laws.  Only five senators opposed the CDA.  One of them, Senator Patrick Leahy of VT (D), objected that "...we have not upheld our adherence to the First Amendment with the proposed restrictions on the Internet." [source]

The greatest argument against the CDA was that it meant that images and statements perfectly legal in print were censored on the internet.  The internet was now, according to the The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), centered in Washington, D.C., the "most heavily regulated communications medium in the United States!" [source]  The CDA, while protecting children by declaring it indecent to proposition minors online (as it is offline), also punished those who sent indecent material directly to minors or made it available for them to view.  This means that not only could an individual be arrested, but their Internet Service Provider (ISP) could be punished as well.  Any provider that gives web space is responsible for the content.  The CDA states that "[if] by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any obscene communication in any form including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image..." they may be punished up to up to $100,000 and/or imprisoned up to two years. 

This, needless to say, caused a bit of a stir.  The after effects of the CDA can still be seen in outdated web pages with a background of black and a small image of a blue ribbon calling for Internet free speech.  Yahoo hosts both an anti-CDA and a pro-CDA category. 

Organizations such as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) banded together with 18 similar groups to challenge the CDA in court.  They brought the case Reno vs ACLU to the Supreme Court, where online censorship clauses were found unconstitutional and in violation of the first amendment by a 7-2 margin.  In the majority decision, associate judge John Paul Stevens wrote that, "The CDA's burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the Act's legitimate purposes..."  In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner noted that the CDA simply "create(s) 'adult zones' on the Internet" - something already seen in other media.

back to top