From the Times, Gainesville, Georgia, Thursday, July 17, 1997, page 6A
Internet isn't smut
peddler it's made out to be
David Matthews - Guest Column
In reading the July 14th Times article on the Internet and the recent decision by the Supreme Court striking down the Communications Decency Act, I feel I must voice my own concerns on this issue.
I was one of the people who participated in the legal fight against the CDA. My name was listed along with some fifty thousand other members of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, one of the key plaintiffs in the suits. I was strongly opposed to the CDA because it not only violated the First Amendment, but also because it was not realistic with how the Internet works.
The biggest mistake supporters of the such measures have made is assuming that the Internet works like broadcast media. That myth was quickly debunked in the federal trial last year in Philadelphia, and again in a separate trial in New York that had little media attention. Federal judges were allowed to go on the Internet themselves to see exactly how it works. They agreed unanimously, in both cities, that people have to go to those "questionable sites" much like one would find a book in a library, instead of having it "invade" your system like television or radio does. Their decisions, which included a detailed explanation on how the Internet works, were part of the basis for the Supreme Courts overwhelming decision in striking down the CDA.
Another important part of the Philadelphia trial is that one of the witnesses for the Justice Department had to admit under oath that indeed filtering software work. Contrary to the opinion of Hall County Library System Director Susan Stewart, these filtering programs do indeed work, but only when parents and officials know how to use them. Nor are these programs "new." The first of these filtering programs, SurfWatch, has been on the market three years. They may not be 100% effective, but they are one thousand times more effective than legislation forged by people who knew absolutely nothing about how the Internet works.
Did you know anyone with a more recent version of Microsofts Internet Explorer already HAS a filtering program installed? Microsoft set up a content-based filtering program with the Recreational Software Advisory Council for the Internet. RSAC was first known for setting up advisory ratings for software programs. Parents can set up content controls for language, violence, nudity, and sex. They can even set up the browser to note access sites that arent rated with RSAC, or other ratings systems that no doubt will be developed. Netscape will be including similar content controls in their version 4 browser. The only difference being you can get Microsofts browser free of charge off the Internet, while Netscape charges a fee for downloading their version.
Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts thinks online providers should provide parents such software either free of charge or at cost. As usual, members of Congress are behind the times. Many Internet Service Providers already do this, and it is only a matter of time before the others will do the same. Not because of some overbearing and power-hungry members of Congress, nor because of publications like Time Magazine pulling Chicken Little acts such as their infamous "Cyberporn" scare when this whole mess started. Theyll provide it because they dont want kids to have access to inappropriate materials any more than the rest of us do.
The basic reality about the Supreme Court decision is that its up to the parents, teachers, and librarians to do their jobs and make sure kids dont have access to inappropriate materials. They have the tools, and thanks to the more responsible members of the media, they also know about the tools. Its up to these groups, not the providers, and certainly not the government, to do their part.
David Matthews 2 is a Gainesville resident and free-lance writer. For more information about the Recreational Software Advisory Council please check out their web site at http://www.rsac.org