Decency Act for Internet

The Times’ March 17 editorial regarding the Communications Decency Act conveniently overlooked the fact that the Internet has the dubious distinction of being the only place where you can give pornography to a child without any legal consequences. The CDA is very simply about making it illegal to knowingly transmit or display pornography to children. But opponents of the legislation avoid discussions of that like the plague, instead favoring hysterical claims that literary masterpieces and important health discussions are in jeopardy. These kinds of materials are not targeted by the CDA.

The editorial also couches its description of that which is available to children in terms like “prurient” or “objectionable.” However, the pornography available on the Internet includes everything from soft-core porn to hard-core sex acts, including child pornography.

The argument that the term “indecent” is constitutionally vague overlooks the fact that it was the U.S. Supreme Court itself that originally defined the term and has upheld its use. It’s a huge stretch to assert that making it a crime to knowingly distribute pornography to a child will harm the 1st Amendment rights of adults to access legal material. Adults have any number of access points if they want the material. Children should not. Children deserve to have their innocence protected.

PAUL J. MAURER

Vice President, National

Coalition for the Protection

of Children & Families

Claremont