On February 8, 1996, President William Clinton signed the new

Telecommunications Reform bill into law. This bill is supposed to create more

competition in the telephone, cable and online industries. The problem with this

bill is that Congress went too far in two policies. They are supposed to protect the

young population from "indecent" material. The first one, the V-chip, will allow

parents to decide what types of television shows that they permit their children to

watch. The second policy, the one that this web page is concerned with, is the one

that caused outrage in cyberspace. The bill prohibits "the transmission of, any

comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is

obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten,

or harass another person." Basically, this part of the bill would restrain the

internet's content to a child's level, so that no one is offended.

This is where the battle begins. If the internet's content is lowered to a child's

level, wouldn't that inhibit an adult's right to communication? This is an obvious

breach of an individual's First Amendment right. In the June Federal Court case,

ACLU v. Janet Reno (Attorney General of the United States), the three judge panel

voted unanimously that this was in fact, an infringement on a person's

Constitutional rights.

The internet is the newest, and fastest growing form of communication. The

internet is a very useful educational tool. A simple click can send you to a foreign

country, to read some of the greatest literature ever written, or to browse some of

the world's museums. Images of great works of art, such as Michelangelo's

sculpture of David, would be outlawed because some users may feel that the

statue offends them. Sections of from great literary works such as The Catcher In

The Rye would also be illegal because of the occasional four letter word. Since

more and more children are being educated by computer, removing these works of

art and literature would produce cultureless society, and therefore a decrease in

our value system.

Another problem would be that several support groups would have to be

dissolved. You often hear stories of people who felt alone who found support on

the internet. Support groups that have topics such as breast cancer, sexually

transmitted diseases, and incest/rape would also be regulated by regulation, which

would decrease the number of people they could help.

Many parents were happy about this new legislation. Their kids would be safe

from any "indecent" material on the internet. They forget that most kids will find

out more about "indecent topics" in the school yard, than on the internet. Also,

there are programs out there that will prevent a child from going to unapproved

sites. These are easily used and maintained by the parents. An article from The

New York Times (February 9, 1996) says that this "is the proper approach,

leaving parents, not congress or the courts, to decide what children should, and

should not have."

There are thousands of people who are fighting internet regulation. Yes, of course

there are some who abuse their freedom, and set up pornographic sites, but the

others realize the potential of the internet as a learning tool. Teachers around the

nation are beginning to see how useful the internet can be in helping to reinforce

their lessons. You can see this in my own school. Computers are slowly popping

up in classrooms. Science classes use computers in labs to record data. English

teachers are beginning to think about setting up web sites to share papers with

other students around the country. Families also find the internet useful. Parents

can find stock quotes quickly and easily. Children can research projects. The news

is up to the minute. Families can also keep in touch with relatives by way of email.

There is no doubt that the computer and internet are here to stay, and a free form

of information is an important part of our society.

The regulations are quick fixes in a world where some parents are too busy to

raise their own kids. The United States government is not a baby-sitter for its

children. Lately, there has been a lot of talk about family values. If the parents are

worried about what their kids see, then maybe they should make time in their busy

lives to spend some time with their kids, and learn together, about the world of

knowledge that the internet has to offer. This would promote family values, and

remove the obligation of the government to control the country's children.