Civil Liberties in Cyberspace:

Tim Preston

As it stands now, the Internet makes available almost any type of resource imaginable, ranging from the useful to the bizarre to the offensive and maginally illegal. There are currently sites on the Web where people can access:

• information and propoganda of hate groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi organizations.
• pornography, ranging from "soft porn" to hard-core depictions of patently indecent sexual acts.
• information on groups whose practices may not be considered appropriate in some communities (e.g. homosexuals, satanists, anarchists, republicans, etc).
• information which is intended to defame or otherwise attack specific people or organizations.
• information which could be put to illegal use (e.g. "how-to's" on producing and using drugs and/or weapons, lockpicking, consumer scams, pyramid schemes, etc.)

Is it right for just anybody, especially children, to be able to access such information? Should certain things be completely taboo for discussion online even when they would be perfectly acceptible for consenting adults to discuss in real life? Should it be the responsibility of the person maintaining a site on the internet to make sure nobody takes material they shouldn't have access to, or is it the responsibility of the agent accessing the information?

The President recently signed a bill into law which attempts to control what is available on the internet by holding the person liable who transmits the indecent data which a minor may access. There is much opposition to this law, and numerous lawsuits intending to get the law declared unconstitutional. For further discussion of this law, see http://www.clari.net/suitpage.html, http://www.eff.org, or http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. Certain parts of the law have already been declared unconstitutional, and there is currently a restraint on enforcing the law.

But should a law even exist? There are laws regarding content on other broadcast media such as TV or radio, but the internet is not a broadcast media in the same sense. There is definitely information which is inappropriate for minors, but there are ways of controlling a minor's access to the internet without controlling what is available to adults. There is information which is illegal in certain nationalities/states/cities/geographic areas, but the internet does not conform to geographic boundaries, as transmission across the globe is as easy as transmission across the street.

People have a right to free speech, but people also have a right to protect themselves and their children from what they find offensive. Should information offesive (or potentially dangerous or illegal) to some be available for others? The development of the internet has reached a point where limits are going to be set, and it is up to those at the forefront of the new technology to decide where it is appropriate (or even possible) to set those limits.

.........................................
This is not my time, brother.            >      Tim Preston
It is cold in heaven,                   <       tpreston@princeton.edu
 and I'm not sprouting wings.            >
                      -R.E.M., Undertow <..................................