The internet was started by the military in the late forties, and has since grown to
an incredibly
large and complex web, which will no doubt effect all of us in the years to come. The
press has
recently taken it upon themselves to educate the public to the dark side of this web, a
network which should be veiwed as a tremendous resource of information and entertainment.
Instead, due to this negative image, more and more people are shying away from the
internet, afraid of what they may find there. We must find a way to regulate what is
there, protect ourselves from what is unregulatable, and educate the general populace on
how to use this tremendous tool.
''The reality exists that governance of global networks offers major challenges to the
user, providers, and policy makers to define their boundaries and their system of
govenment" (Harassim, p84)
The intemet is a group of networks, linked together, which is capable of transmitting
vast amounts of information from one network to another. The internet knows no boundaries
and is not located in any single country. The potential the internet has of shaping our
world in the future is inconceivable. But with all its potential the internet is
surrounded by questions of its usage.
The intemet was named the global village by McLuhan and Fiore in 1968, but recently the
internet has been more properly renamed the global metropolis. Robert Fortner defines the
internet as a place where people from all different cultures and backgrounds come
together to share ideas and information.
" Communication in a metropolis also reflects the ethnic, racial, and sexual
inequalities that exist generally in the society. '' (Fortner, p25)
Huff2
When a person enters into a global metropolis to engage in communication they do not
know who they will interact with nor do they know what information that they may come
across. Which brings an important question to mind. If this is a community, a global
metropolis, should it not be governed to protect the members of the community? But more
importantly, can a community that knows no boundaries and belongs to no country, be
regulated? And who can or should regulate it?
With the vast amounts of information transmitted through network to network, with some
information remaining at sites temporarily or disappearing within seconds, how can one
regulate it? In a meeting of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards in
Australia, iiNet, an Australian intemet provider, presented facts on how much information
passes through their server daily.
''Our own network sees over 200,000 items of email between individuals every day of
the year, and this is increasing. In USENet news, the 'discussion areas', iiNet sees
150Mb of typed data every day, over 100,000 pages. This includes people chatting idly,
informational postings, questions, answers and anything else that the committee can
imagine people wishing to talk about.'' (Senate Committee).
This is an example of one server, the information that passes through it originates
from all over the world. The point is that this one provider can not possibly be able to
review everything that passes through its server.
Should the internet be regulated? We know that it can't and never will be perfectly
regulated and therefore the user will always need to be aware that he is entering a
global community and he may find some information offensive.
Huff3
For example, one of the hottest issues which has been in the news is the internet
transmitting pornography. Individuals and companies do upload and download pomography. It
ranges from pictures of nude men and women to child pornography.
Many schools have adopted the idea of bringing computers into the classrooms.
"In the classroom, where youngsters are being introduced to the machines as early as
kindergarten, they astound-and often outpace-their teachers with their computer skills."
(Golden, 219) Educating students about computer literacy is an important aspect for the
upcoming generation. Computer literacy will become just as important for people to
understand as reading,
writing and arithmetic are.
With this increased ability at such a young age comes the the abilty to access the
net, and the places on the net that we as parents don't want our children going. Much the
same as the ability to walk enables them to go places they don't belong.
The United States has laws which regulate pornography with a clear understanding of
the First Amendment, allowance for freedom of speech. There is a difference between
obscenity which is not protected by the First Amendment and indecency which is!
The way the U.S. determines what is obscenity and what isn't is by using the Miller
three part test to see if something is obscene or not. The test is listed here:
1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards' find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law?
3. Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value?
Huff4
As one might imagine it is complex enough trying to deem what is obscene and what
isn't using this test. All three must be ''yes'' in order to deem something as obscene.
Every state has different pomography laws based on this test because every state has
different community standards. Yet we deal with a global metropolis, in which many
people with different national standards exsist.
''National laws are just that, national in orientation and application. '' (Harissam
p.923)
If we are proposing regulating the internet to make it illegal to distribute and
receive obscene material we need to find a law that the world could agree on. If the
world accepted Miller's test of how to determine obscene material, what would be the
standard needed in order to answer the first question?
These are the questions that are facing the government, providers, and users. Many
users are saying regulating the intemet is foolish and futile. A new act introduced in
the senate, called the Exon/Gorton Communications Decency Act would give the government
authority over what can and cannot be sent over the internet and many users are lobbying
voters to write their senators and ask them not to vote for it, invoking the First
Amendment.
Is anyone regulating the net? The answer is yes, the providers and some universities
are trying to regulate some things. Daniel C. Robbins, the author, artist, and producer
of the bondage, domination, submission, sadism, and masochism web page, was told he would
have to shut down his page by an administrator of Brown University because of the content
of his page. The web page contained stories of married couples tying each other up to
non-consensual rape, torture, and murder as well as pictures and an interactive virtual
reality dungeon. (Robbins).
Huff5
America Online (AOL) also has pulled people's posts because of their content. The
reasoning is that these people have violated their Terms of Service agreement which they
make when they sign onto AOL. The terms of sevice agreement for AOL states that members
must restrain from using vulgarity and insulting language, and from talking explicitly
about sex. Immediately people cry censorship and plead the First Amendment Rights! But in
both cases, First Amendment Rights did not apply. AOL is a private provider and has a
right to let who they want on the net and are breaking no laws for not allowing members
to have complete freedom of speech. The University as well has the right to say what is
received or sent on their server.
The government has started to take a stronger position regarding the internet.
Officials have investigated a few incidents concerning child pornography, and have begun
to investigate more obscene material being sent over the net. Child pornography is
defined as pictures or any visual form that show minors, under the age of 18, in a
sexual way. The material does not need to be legally obscene in terms of the test stated
above to deem it child pornography. All child pornography is illegal and does not enjoy
First Amendment rights. Written marerial about children engaged in sexual acts does not
apply to child pornography, because the marerial has to use real minors. Drawings also do
not count as child pornography. It is easier to regulate against child pornography
because, in the U.S., just having possession of it is illegal.
Where-as a person can not be prosecuted for having other obscene material in his home,
if child pornography is found the person will be prosecuted. If one is to upload child
pornography, or obscene material for that matter, they can be charged with transporting
obscene material across state lines for distribution, which is a crime. Officials,
especially when it comes to comes to child pornography, are starting to take as strong of
a stand as they can.
Huff6
The only reason the government could respond the way it has is because they have been
able to prosecute people in the U.S., mainly for downloading more than uploading child
pornography, because it is such a strong law in the U.S. This has made some users
concerned about whether they are involved in illegal activity. The authors of Cyberspace
and the Law have made a flow chart to demonstrate what should and should not lead a user
to legal problems. it points out even more ominous than pornography ; electronic fraud.
"Computer crime can be enormously profitable." (Logsdon, 162)
"The opportunities for creative fraud are vastly greater than they used to be."(Baig,
Business week, Nov. 14, `94)
Computer embezzlement can be very profitable with literally hundreds of thousand
of dollars right at their fingertips. Many computer embezzlers are not caught,
if they are, it is usually only by chance. Also those who embezzle and are
caught usually "escape prosecution because the institutions they rob prefer to avoid the
unfavorable publicity of a public trial." (Logsdon,164-5)
The temptation is great for many who are computer geniuses."The average lifted in an
embezzlement involving computers is $430,000-and it is not uncommon for the total to go
considerably higher."(Logsdon, 163)
This leads to the question of trust and privacy. New technologies are being developed
to help protect citizens from fraud and give them a sense of privacy , but in the mean
time consumers must remember the old adage: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is!"
Huff7
There are still many flaws that need to be worked out with the new computer revolution.
As someone had written in a usenet group on the Internet: "The ultimate authority of a
claim to my identity is me and my credibility."(Internet source #1)
It is still up to the individual whether or not to believe what has been said and by
whom it was said.
Can the net be regulated? What is it that we want the internet to be for us and our
society?
Is it safe to allow our children to play with a system that adults do not fully
understand and are not sure how to control? These are not easy questions to answer. As
the net grows, goverments will most certainly become more involved, and regulation will
most certainly follow. Most importantly we as adults, parents and educators most find
ways to teach our children how to use this powerful tool constructively.
Granted, that's not easy in today's fast paced, two income, latch-key kids society,
it is imperative that we find a way. Maybe the answer is to take an hour of television
time, and devote it to computer literacy.(Then while we're at it let's take another hour
and read a book!) If that's not possible, there are ways to block out certain sites,
much the same as the V-chip used on televisions. These are readily available, many at no
cost on the internet. This allows us, as users to regulate what enters our home.
References
Y1.Harissam, Linda Global Networks1993 Mass. Institute of Technology 2.Fortner, Robert
International Communication 1993 Wadsworth, Inc. Belmont Calif 3.Senate Select Committee
on Community Standards 4.Robbins, Daniel Documents on Bondage Web Page 5.Cavazos, Edward
and Morin, Gavino Cyberspace and the Law 1994 Mass. Institute of Technology 6.Turner
Research Committee 7.Broadcast and Cable Nov. 6 Vol. 125 Berniker, Mark Internet begins
to cut into TV viewing p.113 8.USA Today Nov. 1 Linda Kanamine, Gamblers Stake out the
Net cover story.
|