I was reading the debate regarding the CDA, and I have to admit I really had a hard time putting aside my biases toward organized forms of religion. I just can’t relate to people who believe that Senators who are supposed to represent an entire state’s popiulation are here to act in one particular group’s stead. I cannot and would not wish for any child to be exposed to pornography, but I don’t believe that in Chapter Nine any real solutions were offered.
My other issue is that I can’t tell whether or not I see the merit in a debate unless I am given all the evidence, which in this case would include the pornographic visuals. However, if they “woiuld not show these pictures to the Senate,” how can I judge whether or not I think that these are truly obscene pictures or not?
I do agree with Professor Fred Cate though that “we must be cautious in excluding communications media from the full protection of the first amendment. To do with today’s electronic information technologies would create an exception that would make the rule of freedom of expression meaningless.”
I am not saying that I have come up with any solutions on how to keep children away from obscene material that is not suitable for them, but I don’t think eliminating academic papers, non-violent pornography, or profanity from the Internet is acceptable. The only solutions I have to offer is stricter parental controls on the Internet. I do not think that everything in this world needs to be suitable for children and I believe that there are some areas such as the Internet that children should only view wiht parental guidance. Shouldn’t the questions be why are these children allowed to just surf all day on the computer without any parental control?
