COLUMN: Making it More Difficult for Parents

must be regulated to protect minors from indecent materials. Last Wednesday, a stunning victory was said to be won for the Internet and its users. The Communications Decency Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton on February 8, was overturned. The three-judge Federal panel that declared this law unconstitutional in Philadelphia was overwhelmingly damning of the language of this law as well as its intent. I would seriously question if any of these judges were aware of the realities of the pornography and sexually explicit material that children may receive from the Internet. I would again question if these judges were aware of the reality of the American family in this decade's difficult economic times. The situation of the family today is particularly pertinent to the issue of "indecency" through the Internet because this panel single-handedly placed the total burden of responsibility upon parents for monitoring their children's use of the Internet. Under the blanket of the First Amendment, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union called the overturning of this law "a complete victory." However, America needs to examine just how complete this victory is. As all regulations are lifted from the Internet, so are all hopes for an environment where positive, educational material may exist for America's children without the concern of their parents. We now have the V-chip for our television so the irresponsibility of television networks in their increasingly unsuitable subject matter may still be displayed. The outright dismissal of this law by this panel is leading us toward the same end with the Internet. Parents must become watchdogs for their children's well-being in an age of ever-growing overexposure to the images that are thrown at them. Pornography, explicit language, even video games where children may pay a computer image of a woman to flash the screen and then may shoot her if they please. This is the reality of the Internet that has been protected. These images that are unsuitable for children are freely displayed and easily downloaded from the Internet. How are parents, in a world where many are divorced or working long hours, supposed to protect their children from the filth that is only as far away as their computer screen? How are they to protect their children in the homes of their friends? How are they to be sure that these images that exploit and pervert the sexual act, as well as glorify violence, do not reach their children's eyes? A ten year old boy could not walk into a drugstore and buy a Playboy magazine or enter an NC-17 rated movie, but will not be protected from seeing these same images over the Internet. These judges have created a double standard for the realities of life and the Internet. This will become the most unregulated medium if we continue this course and become completely unsafe for children as it is becoming now. The Communications Decency Act may be vague in its language; however, something is needed to make this medium safe for children. Judge Buckwalter concluded that not all regulation of speech or images through the Internet would be struck down; however, this panel even attacked the portions of this law that made it illegal for the transmittance of pornography to specific children. The question must be asked of why this panel went so far in its decision and what the Justice Department will do in appealing this law to the Supreme Court. Although the Communications Decency Act is not the law that would be ideal for America in terms of regulation of the Internet, parts of this law would be helpful in moving the country toward legislation on this very controversial medium. Perhaps a more specific wording has to be assigned to the general thoughts of this law. However, it is obvious that the outright dismissal of this issue can not be tolerated. Critics argue that the language of great works of art such as Ulysses, or images created by Robert Mappelthorpe would come under attack. The work of Hugh Hefner and those like him cannot be confused with the work of artists. Playboy's text and images are very different than serious literary or visual arts that are displayed on the Internet. The sexually explicit nature of the pornography that is now being shown on the Internet would not under the C.D.A. be confused with the work of masters. The First Amendment was created with the intention of protecting those who chose to speak against their government. It has now become a symbol of political as well as artistic freedom. The sovereignty of artists in operating under this law for the advancement of society and this culture cannot be questioned. However, the video games, pornography and sexually explicit language that can be found on the Internet cannot be protected by the First Amendment. The frontiers of society are not being challenged through the degrading and dehumanizing words and images that have been protected by this Federal panel. These images are merely symbols of the breakdown of society -- they are not leading society to a greater, more enlightened future. What, in essence, this three-judge panel has succeeded in accomplishing through its decision only hurts parents. It makes their jobs more difficult, while protecting pornography and those who would disperse it from the harsh penalties and regulation it deserves. The Internet must be regulated as are the radio and television industries. Children must not suffer at the hands of a country that is afraid and unwilling to protect them.