The idea of censorship will never disappear, and the debate over it will continue to heat up with intensity. But the future is not yet written, it is still ours to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

Censorship with regards to computers and information sharing across computer networks manifests itself in many different ways today. From what you can and cannot display on a web page on certain servers to what you cannot send through e-mail and who you can send it to. Organizations and governments all over the world are trying and succeeding in censoring what types information flow across their networks and what their end users are able to view.

Censorship is difficult to maintain; the actual concept and implementation of censorship is simply vague. What may be offensive to one person or group of people may not be to another, but one portion of censorship is set in stone. That is the sending and receiving of "obscene or indecent" to or from minors. But how can that be? What is obscene? Webster defines obscene as "1. Disgusting to the senses 2. Abhorrent to morality or virtue." Both of these terms are vague, again what is disgusting to one group may be completely acceptable to another. Indecent is defined as "grossly unseemly or offensive to manners or morals." Again the word morals is used. Everybody has different morals so how can you base a law on that. What makes a picture of a naked woman in playboy "obscene or indecent" but a painting of her hanging in a museum not.

Secondly, how do you punish a person for breaking a censorship rule. It is difficult enough to determine if someone has done something wrong when you are dealing with morals. What is an appropriate punishment for someone who has simply expressed his or her own beliefs. Do you simply require that person to remove the material from the computer or do you add more punishment along with it. Is doesn't seem possible to deprive someone of their privileges for doing something that they couldn't determine was "right or wrong" because all they did was say how they felt about a certain subject. When this person is punished and forced to remove their opinions from the computer then you are also depriving other from gaining valuable insight on subjects which they may have no previously had any experience with.

I believe that actions should be taken to prevent minors from viewing material that may be "obscene or indecent". But what about religious groups. For example at educational institutions, should religious web sites be censored, what about white supremacies page, a Black Panther's page, or for that matter a Catholic page. Most people wouldn't say that a Catholic web site should be censored but if the beliefs of the racial groups are censored then shouldn't all the beliefs of all groups. There is no exact equation to determining if something should be censored or not. On one hand people need to be able to browse the Internet without being offended around every corner but on the other hand people should be allowed to voice their opinions. If you canít voice your opinions at an educational university then why are you there? It is not much of an education if you are supposed to memorize and recite facts. You need to come up with ideas and opinions about those ideas that are unique to you. Viewing other people's opinions is one of the best ways to gather and form an opinion of your own on a subject. I think that this is one of those topics that people are going to have to have a little more tolerance on and learn to accept the way other groups think.

The subjects and materials which are targeted by censorship on the Internet are not as narrow-ranging as one may expect. A large and growing number of specific types, examples, and instances of "unacceptable" subjects and materials are being uncovered and specified. Definitions no longer can be as vague as the above term "unacceptable", or that of "inappropriate". Those who wish to see a cleaner, safer, less offensive Internet press constantly for extreme specificity and equally extreme explicitness in descriptions and definitions of online material which needs blocking, or eradication.

There are two very distinct levels of this definition: that which is determined on a national/governmental scale, and that which is determined per ISP. Both levels, overall, are very similar in the types and instances of subjects and materials they attempt to block or remove. It is in the specific cases and personal preferences related to individual ISPs that differences of opinion take form, and it is from those cases that many of the controversies over censorshipís definitions take shape.

It is the overall goal of all advocates of Internet Censorship that inappropriate materials be blocked or eliminated, on the World Wide Web, in USENET Newsgroups, and in E-mails. These materials, on a broad scale, include those considered offensive, obscene, dangerous, or harmful. But each of these "categories" of materials is broad in itself, and further elaboration and specification are necessary.

Offensive material is the easiest to categorize, but the most difficult to encompass in definition. If any object, picture, word, or any other component of a webpage or message offends any person, then by definition the material is offensive. Overall, it could be said that every web page in existence has the potential to offend someone in some way. In the end, it becomes a "majority-rules" situation, because it would be impossible to catalogue, inspect, investigate, and even admit validity of every single instance of offensiveness on the Internet. Material which offends the most people is that which is targeted, such as racial slurs or other profanity in e-mails and on web sites, and advocation of anti-minority sentiment.

The definition of "obscene" is perhaps one of the most debated definitions of our time, or of any other. Countless debates and court cases and legislation have, at this point, led to the following "official" definition, established in 1973. In the case of Miller vs. California, the Court ruled that material is legally obscene if: 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would conclude that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests; 2) it depicts sexually explicit conduct, specifically defined by law, in a patently offensive manner; and 3) it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

"Dangerous" materials are those which have the potential to pose a threat to the safety of one or more people. Instructions for building a bomb or the recipe for an undetectable poison are subjects such as the many often confronted for their potential danger. Topics such as these are addressed across the Internet, and none of them is without its opposition.

The idea of "harmful" Internet material [when not directly related to that which is "dangerous"] usually is used in consideration of our youth. Harmful materials [in text, image, or other format] normally are those to which children (minors), in the opinion of the general adult population, should never be exposed. Drug-related materials, profanity and slurs, advocation of crime and rebellion, and graphic depictions of sexual activity are among the most popular targets of "Netsitting", the idea being that impressionable minors may be exposed to subjects with which they may be overwhelmed, or to which they may be wrongly attracted.

Internet censorship addresses all of these types of subjects and materials, overall advocating the filtering or blocking of some, and the total eradication of others. It is at the level of responsibility of the ISP that the greatest amount of practice in censoring takes place. Not only do ISPs have to conform to the governmentís suggestions and stipulations for management of materials, but they often have their own guidelines and restrictions which are much more specific and rigid in their limitations.

An ISP has the authority, as part of an account holderís contract or usage agreement, to enforce compliance to its restrictions, whatever they may be. However, it is in the varying levels of restriction from ISP to ISP that the publicís own controversy related to mere difference of opinion is mirrored. Sites operated under Virginiaís Public Education Network have the requirement that all correspondence, postings, messages, and materials have the maximum equivalent of a motion pictureís PG-13 Rating. America Onlineís Terms of Service includes verbiage suggesting that any statement, including any profanity above the equivalent of a G Rating, is grounds for account termination if anyone at all takes offense and makes a complaint. In a specific instance at Virginia Tech involving the university-allocated webpage of a comedy program on VTTV, the authors of the page were allowed to include a WAV file listing the "seven words you cannot say on television" but were prohibited from including, in the heading of their homepage, the phrase "Warning: May Cause Anal Leakage".

It is the extremely ranging differences of opinion reflected by ISP discrepancies such as those listed above that is the basis for much of the controversy surrounding and preventing clear definitions of "inappropriate material". There has not yet been a total agreement as to what should or should not be allowed (with or without monitoring) on the Internet. It is human nature to be a firm believer in oneís own opinions, and the differences and stubbornness of the very people advocating the Internetís censorship may forever be their own biggest obstacle.

If you have learned anything from this report, it is that censorship is the center of a very heated debate. There are so many different opinions on censorship that it continues to be a very broad concept. I think everyone agrees that it is important that we get the laws that govern what is to be censored right. And the laws that will eventually regulate the Internet are no different. While such laws like the Communications Decency Act may seem harmless on the surface, some people see them as an unconstitutional attack on our personal liberties. In the past our countrymen have given their lives to ensure that this Nation remain home to the free. Today there are many people and organizations out there that are trying keep it that way, by ensuring that no laws go into effect that will in any way limit our freedom to speech.

References