FREE ESSAY ON GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OF THE INTERNET

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OF THE INTERNET

During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to move large
amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced
everyone's life. The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast
communications has caused a global network of interconnceted computers to develop. This
global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second,
and enables even the common person to access information world-wide. With advances such
as software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long
distances voice calls and video conferencing, this network is the key to the future of
the knowledge society. At present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free
speech. It is a place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for
what they say, or how they choose to say it. The key to the world-wide success of the
Internet is its protection of free speech, not only in America, but not in other
countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution. To be found on the
Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists' cookbooks and countless
other things that offend some people. With over 30 million Internet users in the U.S.
alone everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating through law
making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity. Recently,
Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable by jail
time to send "vulgar" language over the net, and to export encryption software. No matter
how small, any attempt at government intervention in the Internet will stifle the
greatest communication innovation of this century. The government wants to maintain
control over this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of
children as a smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the
Internet, while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation.
Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide
spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention.
The Internet differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar
site without first entering a complicated address, or following a link from another
source. "The Internet is much more like going into a bookstore and choosing to look at an
adult magazines."(Miller 75).
Jim Exon, a democratic senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency bill regulating the
Internet. If the bill passes, certain commercial servers that post pictures of unclad
beings, like those run by Playboy or Penthouse, would of course be shut down immediately
or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features nudity, sex
talk, or rough language. Posting any dirty words in a Usenet discussion group, which
occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine and six months in jail. Even
worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some of those nasty words in its pages, The New
Yorker for instance, decided to post its contents on-line, its leaders would be held
responsible for a $100,000 fine and two years in jail. Why does it suddenly become
illegal to post something that has been legal for years in print? Exon's bill apparently
would also "criminalize private mail,"... "I can call my brother on the phone and say
anything-but if I say it on the Internet, it's illegal"(Levy 53). Congress, in their
pursuit of regulations, seems to have over looked the fact that the majority of the adult
material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U.S. government sources
helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer control it. Many of
the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come from overseas.
There is no clear boundary between information held in the U.S. and information stored in
other countries. Data held in foreign computers is just as accessible as data in America,
all it takes is the click of a mouse to access. Even if our government tried to regulate
the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in other countries, and we have no
practical way to stop it.
Recently, a major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its
students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960's protest. A research associate at
Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the school's computer
networks. Martin Rimm put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and
he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded (a total of 6.4 million). A
local court had recently declared pictures of similar content obscene, and the school
feared they might be held responsible for the content of its network. The school
administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the newsgroup where
most of this obscenity is suspected to have come from. A total of 80 newsgroups were
removed, causing a large disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties
Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was
unconstitutional. After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the
newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to impose
censorship (Elmer-Dewitt 102).
As the Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more governments may try to
impose their views onto the rest of the world through regulations and censorship. It will
be a sad day when the world must adjust its views to comform to that of the prudish
regulatory government. If too many regulations are inacted, then the Internet as a tool
will become nearly useless, and the Internet as a mass communication device and a place
for freedom of mind and thoughts, will become non existent. The users, servers, and
parents of the world must regulate themselves, so as not to force government regulations
that may stifle the best communication instrument in history. If encryption catches on
and becomes as widespread as Zimmerman predicts it will, then there will no longer be a
need for the government to meddle in the Internet, and the biggest problem will work
itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the censorship and encryption
issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Emler-Dewitt, Philip. "Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon's Attempt to Ban Sex from
it's Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info Highway."
Time 21 Nov. 1994; 102-105
Levy, Steven. "The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad?" Newsweek 24
April. 1995; 55-57
Miller, Michael. "Cybersex Shock." PC Magazine 10 October. 1995; 75-76.