Our nation’s political leaders in the past ten years have been making attempts, as well as debating these attempts, towards regulating pornography on the internet. The goal of regulation, as stated by both sides of argument, is to protect the children of our society from corruption and destruction of moral good. Arguments for regulation derive from ideas that porn on the internet exists in a glutton of filth and repulsive images that expose children too young to understand, to a world of pervasive sexuality and dangerous sexual predators. In debating regulation, US Senators in 1995 attempted to amend the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act, which regulates obscene, indecent and harassing telephone calls and mail. The amendment would expand these laws to computer communications, mainly the internet. This was proposed as the Coats-Exon amendment.
The Coats-Exon amendment presented a strong case. I agree with many of the arguments that they had made in rationalizing the extent of the law. Most compelling is the fact that they were not merely creating new law rather expanding the mediums in which the laws covered. It had already been established that the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act was constitutional and also effective in reducing and punishing obscene and indecent phone calls. The Coats-Exon act would merely expand these regulations to computing communications and allow for prosecution of those who use computers to commit the equivalence of an obscene phone call and retard distribution of sexually explicit materials to minors. By “cleaning up” the internet legislation will give way to an information revolution, with opportunities for Americans to better society.
There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment would be highly successful in achieving the goals of the legislation. People who distribute unwanted obscene and indecent material should have to pay a price. Just as much as I hate telemarketers I hate ads and unwanted emails of porn and other bothersome stuff. Also, minors would be protected on a much higher level from solicitations and exposure to inappropriate material. Distributors of pornography on the internet would have to increase security measures ensuring that those who are accessing the material are of age. Sexually explicit material would only be accessible by adults who actively seek it out. Prosecutions would be a scare tactic for this type of behavior leading to an eventual decline in children gaining access to obscene, unwanted materials.
There is a huge risk in applying this legislation, however, and the result could be the loss of the greatest technological information tool created. The extent to which this amendment would regulate would over step logical boundaries. In argument for this view is Mr. Leahy a Senator from Vermont. I agree with many of his arguments that this legislation would regulate but at the same time destroy the internet as it is. He feels government regulation has screwed up technologies in the past by not letting them run their natural course. Leahy argues that the Coats-Exon amendment would classify an explicit e-mail to someone’s lover the same as an image of child porn. I see this as overestimating that which is obscene and/or indecent and it restricts use of the internet for adults, who are participating in 100% legal activity.
In regulating porn on the internet, it is important legislation stay objective. Remember that the goal we wish to achieve is protection of our children from pervasive and sexually explicit material and peoples. It is not our intent to eliminate or scare people into eliminating free expression of legal ideas in the online communities. Legislation, I feel, should focus on mediating who can view sexually explicit material rather than eliminating it. By working with parents, porn distributors and internet access providers, legislation can be created that would allow for less restrictive means of policing access to this type of material. I know that better age verification and parental supervision software can be produced. By using this software, parents and internet companies will be able to efficiently monitor users and account for their age.
The Coats-Exon amendment to the Telecommunications Act was a good proposal for 1995 but would not be practical today. Interactive computing communication is on a different level from phones and mail. Sexually explicit materials online should be monitored rather than eliminated or regulated. The cooperation of parents, service providers and porn distributors is one of the few practical and least restrictive protections we can offer for our children.
