The First Original Title

 

 

 

Should the Government regulate the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPI Pd 1.

Mr. Young

Trailer 7

Travis Parton

Class of ‘02

Woodlawn High School

5-9/10-02

            In today’s society, the Internet has become more than just a tool or a mere commodity. Now, the Internet is something that has become nearly a necessity and as the time passes it becomes more and more broad linking us together from around the globe.

 

“…The Internet, an international network of interconnected computers that enables millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace" and to access vast amounts of information from around the world.”

            (ACLU V. Reno syllabus http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html)

 

 With it’s accessibility growing, and the amount and type of data flowing through the internet, the government had decided to step in and regulate it’s content to the greatest of it’s extent in order to protect the people of this country who can not accept that others have an opinion. The point of this paper is to determine whether or not the government was right to step in and regulate the internet by exploring the different sides of the argument and using the Reno V. ACLU supreme court case.

 

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

[June 26, 1997]

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

            “At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment.”

            The Supreme Court challenged the CDA and it’s constitutionality by claming it was too vague and infringed on the first amendment allowing the bill to be stricken down. The CDA had been immediately challenged upon it’s signing by president Bill Clinton and went to federal court only to be unanimously declared unconstitutional and challenged in the Supreme Court. The verdict of the Supreme Court was 7-2 in favor of it being ruled unconstitutional. This means the majority view is that government regulation of the internet is not possible at this time. It was stated for various reasons that the internet can not be regulated by the government. Among these many reasons were as stated in the following paragraphs.

            The Internet is a way to access information from all over the world in an instant. With this in mind one government attempting to regulate the information that it’s citizens’ see is nearly impossible. The U.S. government had no legal right or possible way to prosecute any citizen outside its borders for any kind of “indecent transmission” or “patently offensive display.” This leaves the government with the predicament of attempting to control what is seen within it’s borders and prosecute it’s own citizens for creating such material and leaves them with no means of preventing the same citizens from accessing such information that originates in another country.

            Another problem that arises from CDA is the degree of censorship it seeks to attain. By stating that no persons under the age of 18 may witness any material in any way related to sex is illegal you leave the problem of those minors who are searching for things such as discreet teen pregnancy help and information on STDs. These are two growing social happenings in our society that would, if the information were removed, theoretically, increase the occurrences.

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

[June 26, 1997]

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

The opposite argument is presented in the case by, as aforementioned, Justice O’Connor and The Chief Justice. They believe that the regulations that were provided by the CDA were necessary. They felt that in creating the CDA, the government was merely attempting to create age zones online.

“Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a "zoning law" that passes constitutional muster.”

If not for the broad terms used in the CDA it would have been acceptable and performed it’s expected task is the general consensus from these two. However, seeking merely to amend it’s flaws and create a better CDA would be acceptable and should be the goal. Though that’s never reached as it is shot down.

            In conclusion, government regulation of the Internet is impossible, and illogical. It would be impossible to do and the consequences would impede the right to free speech in this country. However, something must be done to keep kids off of such sites and it’s already partially in effect. AOL allows its subscribers to create accounts for kids and keeps them from many sites as well as downloads and attachments. This effectively regulates the Internet for kids and should be in effect everywhere. However, I feel that in no way should the government attempt to own the Internet. It’d be as stupid as trying to own the moon in my opinion.