The Net Effect : Why High Court Struck Down the Law; How Web Filtering Software Works
Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act was widely praised by the online community and roundly criticized by advocates for family values.
The case pitted free speech against the efforts of lawmakers to protect children from pornography and other indecent material on the Internet. It also played into parents’ fears about the global computer network, which kids can often navigate better than adults.
Here are some answers to questions about the court’s decision and its implications.
Q: What is the Communications Decency Act?
A: The act, which was part of a package of legislation that overhauled the nation’s telecommunications laws, made it a crime to send or display indecent or obscene material over the Internet where it could be seen by children. Violators could have been fined up to $250,000 and punished by up to two years in prison.
*
Q: How did the justices rule?
*
A: The nine justices were unanimous in their opposition to the part of the law that prohibited Netizens from displaying otherwise-protected indecent speech simply because it might end up in the hands of children. By a vote of 7 to 2, the court also struck down provisions of the act that banned transmission of obscene or indecent material to minors.
*
Q: Why did the court strike it down?
*
A: The justices said the law was too broad because in trying to keep smut out of reach of children, it would prevent adults from viewing material they have a legal right to see. If allowed to stand, the act would relegate the entire Internet to the realm of G-rated material that is suitable for children, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. Besides, he noted, children are unlikely to happen upon obscene material accidentally; such content generally must be sought out.
The justices were also troubled by the vagueness of the term “indecent,” noting that it could potentially be applied to discussion of subjects like birth control or homosexuality. The Internet, they said, was a new medium that should be given the broadest possible free speech protection.
*
Q: Why are some people upset?
*
A: Many groups were counting on the law to protect children from real and imagined threats in cyberspace. They worry that children will be harmed by exposure--whether accidental or intentional--to pornography, or that they could become the target of pedophiles lurking in Internet chat groups.
The Clinton administration, in defending the law before the court, argued that the Internet’s educational benefits would go to waste if parents refused to let their children go online for fear that they would be bombarded with pornography and other indecent materials.
*
Q: Will Congress try to pass a new law?
*
A: Several members of Congress have vowed to introduce new legislation to restore some of the provisions struck down by the court. Their approaches fall into two separate categories.
Some lawmakers plan to write more narrowly tailored bills that would still prohibit the distribution of pornographic and obscene material to minors. Obscenity, though difficult to define in some circumstances, is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Others have prepared legislation aimed at empowering parents with technology so that they can protect their children themselves. A bill by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) would require Internet service providers to offer screening software that would be the online equivalent of a V-chip. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is also preparing a bill to encourage the Internet community to devise its own rating systems and establish a toll-free number for parents to report harmful material in cyberspace, among other things.
President Clinton, a supporter of the act, said he would convene a commission representing parents, teachers, librarians and industry officials to explore alternative means of keeping cyber smut out of kids’ view. “With the right technology and rating systems we can help ensure that our children don’t end up in the red-light districts of cyberspace,” he said in a statement.
Many expect Congress will now wait for this group to make recommendations before passing any new legislation.
*
Q: Will that protect children from material originating in other countries?
*
A: That is an open question. Thanks to the internationally recognized hypertext transfer protocol--the language of the Web--content stored on a computer server overseas is easily accessible from within the U.S. Therefore, filtering software installed on individual computers is more likely to be effective than blanket government regulations.
*
Q: What is filtering software and how does it work?
*
A: These programs identify Web sites that contain potentially objectionable material and then block the computer from accessing them. Some programs, like CYBERsitter, SurfWatch and CyberPatrol, monitor the Web and determine which sites will be blocked--a tricky process that critics say often results in the blocking of things like AIDS information sites and even the National Organization for Women’s site. Other packages, like NetNanny, allow parents to screen Web sites and other areas of the Internet where certain keywords or phrases are found. These programs are generally available for between $30 and $50.
An industry-sponsored effort to develop a broad rating system for the Internet is also underway. The Recreational Software Advisory Council on the Internet asks Web site developers to rate their own sites by filling out a questionnaire, then affixing a tag that Web browsers can read to determine the nature of the site’s content. But the system, known as PICS, has been slow to catch on.
