Decency Act limitsfreedom of speech

.
Arizona Daily Wildcat

Keith Allen

[]

When President Bill Clinton signed the Communication Decency Act of 1996 last Thursday, he signed a bill limiting free speech on our newest form of American technology, the Internet.

It was an inevitable departure by the government to regulate this new form of communication. Some of it was badly needed. For instance, laws against providing offensive information over the Internet to those 18 years of age or younger were greatly appropr iate. Also appropriate were the 1995 laws concerning child pornographers who had found a small niche in the freedom of the Internet. But this act seems to limit more than just those who present a type of offensive information.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has argued that this act limits the use of language on the Internet. He has stated before Congress that this act makes it a felony (with penalties of two years in jail or $100,000 fines or both) to use any of seven four-letter w ords or to discuss material deemed to be indecent - which he deems as unconstitutional. His reasoning is that the act limits discussion about subjects such as breast cancer, HIV/AIDS and safe sex. In his statement, he said there is no question that everyo ne is for the protection of children. But, he said the use of expressions cannot be limited in this new form of media. Leahy also stated that some information presented through a print media cannot be shown through the Internet. He, along with Sen. Russe ll Feingold, D-Wis., have also already presented a bill that would repeal certain parts of the Decency Act of 1996 encroaching the right to free speech, given in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Leahy's argument is the right one. There is no question that the Internet should have security measures on offensive material for those who are underage, but limitations should not be taken too far. The Decency Act is too broad for regulating the Interne t. The act is unconstitutional because it limits what Americans can say through the Internet. An example Leahy gave is the fact that a woman using America Online used the word breast, and subsequently had her information taken off-line. Come to find out, she was speaking about how she had breast cancer. Her information was later put back on-line, but this example shows how censorship can be taken to a point where it hinders the flow of information. Also at stake would be the on-line versions of certain wo rks of literature, including "Catcher in the Rye."

There are ways to limit the access to areas of the Internet offensive to children without having to censor all "net items." Access codes and security systems can be implemented to do this. Also, pages on the Internet that are not connected to any other pa ges cannot be found unless a person has the address or if it comes up through a net search. Such "secret" sites would control the access that children could have. These addresses could be given out through the mail, in such catalogs as an "Internet yellow pages," with a mail-in address to receive the Internet address. These should also be accessed by a code.

And according to the Associated Press, Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the researcher credited with starting the World Wide Web, has said he will start a free screening program fo r those people who want to keep objectionable material from entering their computer from the Internet. This is yet another option for those who do not want offensive material, and one to keep the freedom of speech alive.

But even with such options, parents must also be looked upon to control how their children use the Internet. They should understand that such material is on the web and that it can be accessed. Security software is available to help parents limit their ch ildren's searches. Curious minds wander, and the responsibility lies with the parents to aid in solving this problem.

Already, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Privacy Information Center have filed a lawsuit against this act. They argue that it is unconstitutional to limit speech on the Internet. The future will see how this case is decid ed, but if it is for the limitation of speech on the information highway, then it is a loss for the people of this country, and one that would have our nation's founders rolling over in their graves.

It is the right of Americans to express themselves through their speech, which includes typing on a keyboard. There is no need to preach this fact because each American should understand this. Such acts, like the one President Clinton signed, give the pow er to the government and other censors to take that right away.

Keith Allen is a journalism senior and Wildcat opinions editor. His column appears every other Monday.

(NEWS) (SPORTS) (NEXT_STORY) (DAILY_WILDCAT) (NEXT_STORY) (POLICEBEAT) (COMICS)