ISSUE 9 Are theDangers ofInternet Child Pornography Exaggerated? YES JuliaWilkins,from “ProtectingOur Children from Internet Smut: Moral Duty or Moral Panic?”TheHumanist (September/ October 1997) NO:BobTrebilcock,from “Child Molesters on the Internet: Are They in Your Home?”Redbook(April 1997) ISSUESUMMARY YESJulia Wilkins, a writerofbooks and articles on educatingchil- dren, argues that claimsof Internet dangers are simply an example of“moralpanic” causing otherwisesensiblepeople to overreact. NO: Magazine writer Bob Trebilcock contends that the Internet is a real danger to children because it provides easy access to por- nography, encourages the creation and disseminationofchild pornography, and provides pedophiles with a new crop of chil- drentoprey upon. I haveswornupon the altarofGod,eternal hostility againsteveryformof tyranny overthe mindof man. -Thomas Jefferson Congress shall makenolaw respecting an establishmentof religion, orprohibiting the pee exðereofi or abridging the freedomofspeech, orof the press. -FirstAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution In spiteofthese valiant declarations,there have always been restraints on speech and writing with both practical and legalsupports.Not that the issue of freedomofexpression (including speaking,writing, publishing, painting, photography, and, more recently, Internet communications) has ever been close toasettled one.Tothe literate and the cultural elite, the very ideaof outside constraints on expression is unacceptable.Tothe religious right and a 183
variety of special interest groups, society simply could not function if there were no regulationsoncommunicationthat might threaten decency. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled over 70 years ago that the First Amendment does not allow someone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater because of the harm that such an act could cause. This ruling, though frequentlyignored in current debates, supportsadvocates of Internet control. It also reflects the thinking of a growing number of scholars and activists who insist that words and images can be psychologicallyor even physically harmful and hence should be illegal. What are the dangers of the Internet with regard to child pornography? Do we need special safeguards?In 1997 theU.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) passed by Congress violated the First Amendment. The Court didnotsay that existing laws prohibiting obscenity, child pornography, libel, copyright infringements, and the like do not apply to the Internet.The Court simply decided that the CDA was far more restrictive of free speech than was constitutional. Hundreds of concerned citizens, especially parents, are forming coali- tions. They are demanding legal actions to close down Web sites that are per- ceived as dangerous and to control computer use and programs inallpublic arenas, especially public libraries and schools. Since 1995 “Innocent Images,” andFBIoperation with10
Want to read all 17 pages?
Previewing 3 of 17 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
Want to read all 17 pages?
Previewing 3 of 17 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
End of preview
Want to read all 17 pages? Upload your study docs or become a member.