Sunday, October 25, 2009

Sexy Internet

The Internet is filled with sex. It is not difficult for anyone to find some kind of adult image on the Internet. You can type in a word to google images or “accidentally” type in a wrong word in the address bar. Whatever the case, the Internet is the biggest contributor of explicit material and has been the topic of indecency cases for years.
In 1997, the United States Supreme Court shot down anti-indecency provisions due to the fact that they violated First Amendment rights. In the case of Reno vs. ACLU, the court overturned the Communication Decency Act. This act was put into place to ban all online communication that was indecent and obscene. The act was supported by Congress in 1996 to protect children from sexually explicit material. However, the court ruled that this violated First Amendment rights.
I one hundred percent agree with the ruling of Reno Vs. ACLU. The Internet has become an enormous gateway for free speech. However, the form of free speech chosen to be expressed through explicit or perhaps “indecent” ways on the Internet needs to be filtered as to not harm children. The decision in the case of FCC v. Pacifica allowed the FCC to prohibit indecent speech during certain times during the day to protect children. As for the internet, there should be something similar to ensure that children can’t get a hold of such sexual material. Today, parents can block certain sites and deny access to search engines. You can also block inappropriate pop-ups and filter spam email. However, if you really want to access such material, most likely you will find a way. The Internet is still a new form of communication and such security kinks need to be worked out.

In the case, Ginsberg v. New York there was a law protecting minors from even seeing “harmful material” even if the material was not classified as obscene. This law is quite extreme as it is overly protected of material that may cause absolutely no harm to minors.
The question is, how far is too far? Sex is becoming less and less of a taboo topic and with the Internet, expressing one’s sexuality is as easy as pushing a button, literally. If we examine other forms of media like print, television, and radio there is a different way of censoring each. More people access the internet then any of the other forms of media. I think that there should be varying levels of protection on different media. Television and radio sometimes are not selective in what it shows or tells.

Sometimes we are watching our favorite show and something we find offensive or obscene that perhaps someone else does not, is flashed before our eyes. There are specific guidelines that television and radio follow, thanks to the FCC. I agree with the flashing of ratings before shows and also that it tells you what may be in the episode. The issue with the Internet is that we choose what websites we click on and also we choose what we want to share with the Internet community.
Sex camming and homemade sex videos are on specific sites and one must choose to go to those websites to find them.
Making these videos or going on webcams is completely protected under the First Amendment. Those who choose to publish this form of free speech should not be regulated. When I say “those who choose” I am only referring to legal adults. There is absolutely no leeway for child pornography. If it is adults who are making this sex videos and playing them on the appropriate sites, then I believe it is completely supported under First Amendment rights.
Philosopher Edwin Baker said that freedom of speech is not a means to a marketplace of idea. He believed that freedom of speech is for individual self-fulfillment and is treated as a universal right. When referring to adults, material deemed obscene and harmful should be determined based on individual’s self-fulfillment to seek out those forms of speech.
In closing, I do not support a federal law that would regulate homemade sex material or a law that punishes Internet Service Providers who allow the posting. I would not label this material as “indecent” as long as it is ONLY adults. We must of course protect children from this material using what is already in place as security on the Internet.

2 comments:

  1. Overall I agree with your argument and I feel much the same way. But in light of it, what do you think of the classifieds on the back pages of The Stranger and the Seattle Weekly? Both are more accessible than the internet, they are free, and as far as I know, they contain no warning about the content. In relation to protecting children, what do you think about this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete