THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, June 19, 1995 TAG: 9506170003
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 66 lines
It is ironic that at the same time Congress is about to deregulate the highways that carry information, it is attempting to regulate the content of the shops and public squares that the highways run past.
Parents are right to worry about their technologically sophisticated youngsters cruising the sleazier side streets and alleys of the information superhighway, but can the government really make the highways safe for underage drivers without impinging the freedom of adults?
Instead, it may be wise to require warning labels and let parents take responsibility for their children. They keep the keys to the car out of the hands of minors and must pull the plug on unacceptable information.
It isn't easy, of course, but ceding control of the information we can receive to the government is asking for trouble. It may start as a benign Nanny but it can easily turn into Big Brother.
The so-called V-chip and S-chip that would permit parents automatically to screen out violent and sexually explicit content sounds great. But in practice, there seems likely to be serious problems with them. First, chips may be an all-or-nothing proposition with no levels or ratings. Some critics warn the chips may also interfere with reception and add expense to TV sets. Furthermore, the chips won't decide which entertainments are designated as too violent or titillating, people will.
What people? And where will they draw the line - at ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' NFL Football, ``Macbeth'' or the evening news? All can contain scenes of graphic violence. It is much harder than the legislation implies to decide what will be acceptable and who rules. The watering down of all content to kiddie level is one possibility. Legal chaos is another. Another provision, to require TV and cable to label programs with ratings - like those already in use on movies and records - and let the buyer beware makes more sense.
Plans to control offensive matter on the Internet are even more problematic. No one denies that along with commerce, seminars in physics, the contents of the world's libraries and art museums and chitchat there's sleaze on the Internet. But will the legislation proposed to regulate it work?
There are already federal laws against the electronic dissemination of child pornography. This bill would impose fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to two years on anyone who knowingly makes or makes available obscene communications to people under 18.
Well, what's obscene? Or lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent? All would be unacceptable and all are slippery to define. Legal experts think some material now banned in print would be acceptable on-line under this language. Conversely, some material judged acceptable in print could be banned on-line. This legislation may be a bonanza for lawyers without really solving the problem. There's also a good chance that the real sleaze merchants would escape the effect of the law by moving their operations offshore. They couldn't be prosecuted but the material would still be available since the Internet is a global web.
Perhaps the final bill will resolve some of these mysteries, but the issue raises profound questions. One can be adamantly opposed to the availability to minors of violent and sexually explicit material without favoring government regulation of communication. The same people who worry about government control of guns or prayer appear to favor government's being granted the power to control what can be seen and said on all channels of electronic communication. It is a prospect that ought to set alarm bells ringing. by CNB