THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 7, 1996 TAG: 9601050029
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 61 lines
A huge telecommunications bill is working its slow way through Congress. It aims to deregulate much of the wired world, but it would impose new regulations on so-called cyberporn. The effort is wrong-headed.
In one version of the bill, making materials that are ``filthy, lewd or indecent'' available to minors on the Internet would become a felony punishable by a fine of $100,000 and two years in prison. But there are existing laws on the books to deter crimes like child pornography.
Rather than the Big Brother of government censoring the Internet, the power should stay where it belongs - in the hands of individual parents. Filtering mechanisms are becoming available that will let computer users control content. The proposed law could have the absurd effect of restricting the Internet to material acceptable to children.
It's not just civil libertarians in the American Civil Liberties Union mold who are concerned. Conservative libertarian organizations oppose controls on free speech administered by bureaucrats. Six months ago, Speaker Newt Gingrich warned that a version of this bill could violate ``the right of adults to communicate with each other.''
An analogy is sometimes made to controls on the kind of speech permitted in broadcast media, but that's quite different. Broadcast, as the name implies, can impinge on innocent bystanders. But participants must choose to join the Internet conversation.
Even in the case of broadcast, the proposed telecommunications bill doesn't mandate government censorship of content. It merely calls for inclusion of so-called V-chips in TV sets to permit parents to block objectionable content.
Restrictions proposed for the Internet go further. The bill would permit government censors to decide what Internet content would be permitted and to prosecute people who cross the line. Abuse of such power is a danger. And the record of politicians defining what's lewd, filthy or indecent isn't encouraging. It's proved difficult for the law to discriminate between sleaze and literary classics.
Even if the law could, the First Amendment protects most speech and strictly limits government censorship. If such a law passes, it will head to the Supreme Court and is unlikely to be upheld. The court has never allowed censorship on such a scale or under so vague a standard.
In a famous dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ``The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.'' Some worry that minors will find ``adult material'' on the Internet - the latest marketplace of ideas. But the solution is not to put the government in the nanny business. That cure is worse than the disease.
The solution is for parents to control the Internet access of their children through technological filters, personal suasion or spending decisions. Free speech and free choices by individuals are preferable to government controls, and it is surprising that those who favor strict limits on government interference in the economic marketplace have to be reminded it's also desirable in the marketplace of ideas. by CNB