Research Paper by: Bryan Harrison
Subject: Censorship, Internet, Pornography

Censorship And The Net
Works Cited

It appears that throughout the entire history of mankind, the onset of all major innovations has created chaos among groups who believe differently from one another. The discovery of the lands in the west, namely the American continent, caused extreme uproar between parties who wanted to harvest the land for its goods and treasures versus those who sought refuge from religious and physical torment. In the long run, this land of which I speak has gained its freedom by bloody war, whereby it made a constitution that maintains that never again will America be confined to the thoughts and practices of a corrupt dictatorship, nor any power that exists to take away the freedom of the inhabitants therein.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Jefferson).

 

Today, we are faced with yet another major innovation, capable of bringing together the entire planet in a vast circle of knowledge and understanding. This Internet makes it possible for any common person to communicate with another who is seated in any corner of the Earth. The Internet provides the planet with "...a dedicated, high-speed, federally subsidized electronic post- office" (Sterling). Now, almost everyone is able to exchange their ideas with anyone who wants to listen. In a business spectrum, the Internet provides countless ways to enhance the range and effectiveness of advertising world wide. We seem to think this powerful new medium should have all good symbols pinned to its chest, but along with this certain success machine comes controversial issues such as free speech and pornography.

Now, there comes into play the issue of censorship. Can we, as Americans, let our government take away our constitutional right to free speech? Nay! We cannot allow this. In Athens, where democracy first flourished, Socrates preferred to sacrifice his life rather than accept censorship of his teachings. ...Socrates defended free discussion as a supreme public service (Microsoft). Free speech is the unconditional right of every man. No matter how offensive, or inappropriate his words may sound, as long as his words don’t take away the rights of others, he can say them. For at last, we have found "...a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy...there are no official censors, no bosses, no board of directors, no stockholders" (Sterling). The Internet, to me, exhibits a flight upward toward a perfect society where only peace is the ruling power.

To the person who argues, "We should completely ban all offensive materials on the Net," I simply reply, "Heathen! To ban all that is offensive on the Internet, even to have it censored, is just as wrong as the book-burning days of old." The limiting of information has been one of the greatest cause of ignoble ignorance and corruption. In no way does the Internet force anyone to read or look at "obscene" material. Even though pornography and harsh words are easy to come by, they are just as easily avoided. The reader has always had a choice of which links are appropriate for him or her to follow. When a person wants to see pornography, or read controversial literature, that person will find it, whether it be by the Internet, television, libraries, news articles, magazines, speeches, books, or any other source of media. Therefore, I say that if you seek to censor the Internet, then you might as well censor the rest.

What about children? Children are subject to all the pornography, smut, and dirty language that the Internet has to offer. Not only are children subject to this "smut", they are also being used as subjects for pictures and sales. The children involved with these activities may or may not want to be a part of them. Sometimes kids may be forced to pose in front of a camera. Any type of force to take away ones rights is against all moral ideology. Therefore, the photographers, or in this case, rapists should be punished to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, if this child and his or her parents concur with the motives of the photographer, there should be no law involved. Even though I strongly disagree with the use of children as objects, I cannot take away the freedom of another. I agree that children should be limited to what their parents let them hear or view. "Parents can teach children safe behavior on the Internet just as they teach them to deal with the dangers present in the real world" (Cranmer). Not until the age of "reckoning" (18 years old as to American law) should children have total decision making authority over themselves. Until that time, the parents are confronted with the harsh struggle of keeping their kid’s heads on straight.

Recent developments include help in the form of blocking-software such as Net Nanny or Cyber Sitter. Many pieces of software similar to these are available to parents who don’t have the time to watch over the shoulder of their young ones. Parents should use caution because, "such filtering software does not actually perform as advertised, and in fact not only [are they] physically incapable of blocking material that fits a particular legal definition such as ‘obscene’, but also has been demonstrated to block numerous sites with no ‘obscene’ or ‘indecent’ content whatsoever, even as much as 99% of online material that is perfectly suitable for children" (The Electronic Frontier Foundation). Soon, I hope a befitting alternative will be available to provide meaningful service without hindering children from the pursuit of good knowledge.

One of the major fights for censorship and the banning of pornography on the Internet comes from the standpoint of women’s activism. "Women will no longer be objectified as play toys. We aren’t your little slaves any more!" Yes, I can understand these desperate cries from the hearts of the right-winged extremist. Women have been released from bondage, and deserve to be equals. The previous statement ironically happens to be very similar to my rebuttal. Women have rights. Other women just need to learn to accept the fact that a good figured woman can make a fortune in the porno business.

Contrary to what many think, some people maintain that...

 

"The female form is especially well suited for artistic expression not only because it is God’s ultimate statement of beauty, but also because no other subject can evoke the same spectrum and depth of responses. The model is a subject full of life and emotion which can express what it is to be human (LaBane).

 

Most people agree that women are considered to be one of God’s finest creations and deserve to be looked upon as art. What some may consider "smut", is considered by others as a masterpiece. Why would anyone want to do away with art?

The most part of significant moral ideology maintains that all have the right to do what ever they please, for the benefit of society, or merely for selfish reasons as long as no one is hindered in this right by the actions of another. Also maintained is that one group or religious faction cannot take the place of an individual’s sense of logic and reason, whereby to judge what is right or wrong. Throughout my writings, the main point of all of my arguments have come from the above philosophy. I believe my words to be right. Not right by only my standards, but with God’s as well.