ack biography
nack biography
ack-nack

silicon sliphome

 

 

 

 

The Communications Decency Act
Should We or Shouldn't We?

Here's what Walt, Jackie, and Tina (best audience submission so far) said... Remember to tell us what you think. The best audience response wins a FREE Spike Webb t-shirt.

 

ack bioJackie Stone
SWP: The courts have ruled the Communications Decency Act to be unconstitutional. Jackie, where did you stand on this debate?

JS: First of all, don't use the past tense, the fight is far from over. But to answer your question, I opposed the law for many reasons. Primarily, I'm just opposed to censorship. I don't believe it's in our best long-term interest to ask the government to do our thinking for us. We have to take on the responsibility as individuals. Being given that responsibility, that choice is what this country is supposed to be about. It's really pretty disappointing to me that so many people don't understand the reduction of freedoms implied by these kinds of laws. I guess a lot of people slept through their high school civics class.

SWP: The CDA was also attacked as being vague and unenforceable legislation.

JS: The technical concepts behind the CDA were just ridiculous. How is US law going to regulate the content of an international communications network? In retrospect, I don't think the CDA was even seriously supported by its advocates. I think it was just a political trial balloon designed to placate some right-wing extremists and see how big a reaction it would get from the opposition.

SWP: So you think there's a bigger picture to this? Something more ominous than the one piece of legislation?

JS: Absolutely. I think the Pro-CDA people are waiting until after the presidential election to bring out a full attack. If Clinton is re-elected and continues his support of a CDA law, the beginning of a second term is the perfect time for pushing through unpopular measures. If Dole wins, obviously his agenda will include moral majority - type issues. Either way, 1997 is going to be the real push and frankly I'm worried about our chances of holding them off. The CDA was poorly designed. The next try won't be. We won't get out on constitutional technicalities next time. It will come down to the core issue itself – censorship.

nack bioWalter Dodson
SWP: The Communications Decency Act got a lot of opposition. Were you surprised by that?

WD: The CDA was so antagonistic to the online community that I wasn't surprised by the reaction that came from that sector. As a journalist, I'm always worried about censorship and laws that restrict free speech. But I believe a balance has to be found somewhere in the middle. We need laws to define the boundaries of acceptability. The Internet got a bad reputation for pornography because it contains material which many people find offensive. I believe that laws which would limit that kind of content would be good for the Internet. It would become more open to more people who are avoiding it today because of those few sites which publish pornography.

SWP: But isn't it true that the CDA would not have forced any material off the Net. Publishers would just have moved it outside the US?

WD: Nothing would have changed immediately, that's true. But the important thing is to begin the process of correcting the situation. Get some guidelines in place and work with them from there. That's what the CDA was intended to be – a first step.

SWP: Many people are worried about exactly that. That increased control and further restrictions would have come out later.

WD: That kind of fear tactic is the most frustrating thing to me. Whenever we try to establish any content guidelines in any medium, the argument is that we are giving up all control to Big Brother Government or something. Where does that come from? Why can't we deal with decency as an issue instead of turning it into a first amendment debate. The two are separable. Hiding this issue behind the first amendment is doing the country a disservice by circumventing the real debate. Apparently those who oppose CDA-type legislation are afraid they would lose if the real issue was discussed.
Tina Hodge says...
This is a difficult issue because of its reprocussions from either extreme. First, as Americans, we need to understand that we do not have freedom of speech. I don't think it's wise to dilute ourselves into thinking that we do. According to our laws, you cannot slander people. That means you cannot say whatever you want to about them. That is a loss of freedom of speech and is in direct conflict with the Constitution. You cannot make threatening remarks about the President of the United States whether you mean it or not. That is a loss of freedom of speech. Television stations cannot show the programming they want to without the FCC's approval. I could go on and on. While we do not have freedom of speech, we can still express ourselves to a great extent and wish to keep it that way.

On the other hand, should we allow people to post pictures of children or women being raped and murdered because we're afraid to let goverment regulate our freedom of expression? I don't think so. So what is the balance?

I think that Americans need to understand that the Constitution was written by a group of people who had a very different perception of reality than we do. I think they anticipated that this country would change but had no concept of the technology that would be available and how radically the culture would change. Had they known how things would change, I don't think they would have written the Constitution any different. But I do think they would have stepped in to protect people in such cases. Being that they were bold enough to establish the first Constitution, I believe they would also have been bold enough to let its meaning evolve to protect people and meet the country's needs.

What this means is that we need to use common sense and follow our hearts. We haven't lost the right to vote. If the first go around of a law such as the Communication Decency Act doesn't meet our needs, vote it out. Make them rewrite it until it works. If they won't rewrite it until it works, then vote out the politicians who enstate it. Our power to vote is the strongest form of expression and speech we have in this country, and, yet, so few of us use it. And isn't it interesting that we have given up such basic rights to freedom of speech as those mentioned in the first paragraph, yet, we still want to fight tooth and nail to be able to post pornography if we wish to.