I believe that the Internet is the closest thing that people have in terms of “full” freedom of speech. Apart from being able to post things online anonymously, the Internet is a different level of media. According to our authors, Tedford and Herbeck, the Internet is different from traditional media such as print and broadcasting in 4 ways: first, anyone can gain access to the Internet with a computer and Internet connection and practice their freedom of speech such as expressing their opinion with no hesitations. Second, the internet doesn't have any gatekeepers with the lack of censorship. Third, minors can lie about their age when accessing an R rated website unlike in “real life” where they are carded upon entering an R rate movie. And lastly, messages said and posted through the Internet has no limitations where they can reach since it is not tangible. (400). In other words, things posted on the Internet can be easily manipulated. In this day and age, with the rise and fame of web cameras and instant messaging services such as Yahoo, MSN and the popular video conferencing, Skype, it has become more difficult to control the Internet as a whole. If an individual has access to a computer and an Internet connection, he or she could post homemade sex videos for the public to see.
In terms of supporting the federal law on banning such materials, I think the extent that I would go to won't be punishing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for allowing obscene and/or indecent postings. I don't think that it would do much and benefit people in the long run as ISPs are harder to control. However banning materials on a smaller scale is a more achievable goal in terms of regulating materials posted on the Internet.
There are two terms that are important to note and define which are obscene and indecent. It is a bit a hard to distinguish between the two because they tie in together. But with defining them, there is a bit of a differentiation. Indecent material not just deals with the notion of sex but an array of other subject matters that are “offending against generally accepted standards of propriety of good taste; improper; vulgar”. Obscene material (language or image) on the other hand is something that (1) offends morality and indecency at a particular situation (2) causing uncontrolled sexual desire (not limited to pornography).
Under the case Miller v. California, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. The case dealt with Marvin Miller who wanted to test what constitutes obscenity. He had sent out a mass mail of advertisements of books that contained sexually explicit material around California. The ads consisted of groups of men and women engaging in various sexual acts. Households who opened the advertisement where offended because they hadn't asked for it and had found the routine obscene. The Court ruled and concluded that obscenity was not protected by the freedom of speech by the First Amendment.
Under the precedent FCC v Pacifica, indecency was defined when a father complained about George Carlin's routine of "Filthy Words" being broadcast on Pacifica Foundation FM one afternoon and being heard by his young son. Pacifica received sanction from FCC for violating FCC regulations. The Court came to a conclusion that the case was not obscene but indecent because as the definition said, it went against “generally accepted standards”.
In the case of Reno v ACLU, it touches upon both indecency and obscenity notions. This was a case wherein the Court voted to strike down anti-decency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) due to the violation of the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. The CDA was an attempt for minors (under 18) to be protected from explicit materials posted on the Internet. Individual(s) who transmitted the obscene or indecent materials to minors would then be criminalize. However, the Court thought that CDA lacked legitimacy that the First Amendment is asking for that would regulate a speech. In terms of protecting minors from the unmanageable nature of the Internet, I think the CDA had good intentions.
Due to the fact that we are talking about the Internet-- a media that has lack of control in terms of screening things, I'm not very sure if punishing the material as indecent will work. It worked for FCC v Pacifica because the FCC has rules and regulations on what could be broadcast. And if the rules were broken, it is easy to label the behavior or action as indecent as they have set standards of what is decent. But with Internet, there is no fine line between indecency and obscenity. But if I had to choose, I think that I would lean more towards applying obscenity. Since the First Amendment does not protect this, citizens who felt like were victimized by obscene behavior would be protected.
Venus does a good job breaking her observations of the various court cases up so they are easy to understand and follow in concerns to implementing regulations on obscene or indecent internet speech.
ReplyDeleteVenus states in the beginning of her blog that the internet stands apart from traditional media. I agree with this observation, although I would argue that as our society is shifting with technological developments, it would beneficial and prudent to begin generating a greater focus to the way in which information is disseminated and received online. In this regard, I disagree with Venus, and think the information of “obscene” and indecent” material online should be treated the same as if it were printed.
In her final paragraph, after examining the difference in meaning of obscene and indecent and looking at court precedents including Miller v. California and FCC v. Pacifica, Venus states she would apply laws of obscenity to regulate creation and dissemination of information online.
I believe similarly to Castillo v. Texas, if the material is clearly marked for adults, and they have implemented some methods of confirmation of adult age, that the information should be available for consenting adults. The fact is children are children and if an adolescent wants to see something of “obscene” or “indecent” nature they will. It is up to the parents to continually check in with their children about what they are seeing and feeling in the world. URL history and parental blocks are available online as well to aid parents in their efforts to “keep their children safe.” It seems that the more our society says “no” or makes something off limits for its indecent content, the more tempting it becomes. Perhaps if our society engaged in a genuine dialogue about sexuality, nudity, pornography, and intimacy, what we deem to be dirty, or offensive, would in fact be the expression of a common perspective of sexuality.
I would have liked to have heard more about how Venus thinks we could regulate the internet on a small scale versus punishing ISPs for their published material. I do agree with Venus that in no way should an ISP be penalized for offensive content online – it is the creator, not the distributor that should be originally questioned.
After reading this post I realize there are many more complexities to the material online than in printed material – I am reminded of how quickly our society is changing and how slow the court process can be, this dichotomy I think will continue to grow more apparent in the next few years as our society looks more and more to the internet for our film, our print, our news, as well as personal opinions.
Venus gives a very nice introduction to support her argument that the Internet is the closest thing we have in terms of freedom of speech in its entirety. She does this by outlining the four ways that the Internet is different from traditional media according to Tedford & Herbeck. I agree with Venus that the Internet is a whole new medium in which anyone can post anything for the whole world to see, unless it is anonymous (though I’m sure there are loopholes to get through to the original author of, say, a blog post). However, because the Internet is such a free space for any one to access, I cannot help but question whether that alone may be a reason to put more online restrictions, especially for children who may be prone to accessing illegal sties.
ReplyDeleteVenus states that punishing ISPs for allowing obscene or indecent postings would be hard to control, which I agree with. These are merely Internet Service Providers, in which their duty is to provide the public with whatever material was created. Whether that content is obscene or not is not up to the Providers themselves, concluding that they should not be given any punishment for the material they distribute.
Venus gives several cases, which support her in defining the terms, “obscenity” and “indecency.” She concludes that she would apply obscenity over indecency in online material, which makes me wonder whether the Internet, or ISPs, should have a set of rules and regulations on what can be posted. In reflecting upon Venus’ post, I recognize that there are layers of complications regarding the Internet, obscenity, and indecency. However, I have come to a conclusion that the Internet does have a lack of control in terms of screening material for underage children, as Venus mentions. But if we were to respect freedom of speech for everyone, some “indecent” or “obscene” material to one person may simply be an expression for another. The Internet, in this sense, is a completely new world that has no limits and possibly no ultimate solution that will satisfy every Internet user.
I agree with Venus’ blog. The thing I agree with the most is that she makes a point to that the Internet is a whole different level of media. Her three points that she outlines, that the Internet is accessible and open to anyone with a computer, with lack of censorship there are no gatekeepers, and that people could lie on the internet, are all very important and without actually making light of the question (they all are applicable, but they don’t explicitly say their connection to “homemade” porn), but remain very relevant. She makes a good point about how easily things could be manipulated on the Internet, which I believe is one of the bigger points when you’re trying to show how the Internet is a different form of media entirely form any other Media source. A point I disagreed with to an extent was her argument for why she chose obscene behavior to be censored. I mean I don’t really disagree with her argument, but the issue I have is more about the definition she chose to argue on behalf of. I mean the second half of her definition (quoting her post), “(2) causing uncontrolled sexual desire (not limited to pornography).” When you add that aspect to the definition, it makes it so much broader (to be blunt because people now-a-days are into anything). I would agree with her argument if it weren’t for that aspect of the definition. Other than that I agree with Venus’ analysis.
ReplyDelete