It's not the government's duty to protect children from online porn
Issue date: 2/9/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Whether it is researching Frederick Douglass for a school assignment or looking at lingerie from Frederick's of Hollywood, many people use the Internet each day for various reasons. However, it is possible for someone who is searching online for the former to inadvertently get the latter.
The U.S. government wants search engines to turn over data regarding what is being searched online in order to revitalize the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. According to the law, offenders with commercial Web sites that make "harmful" materials available to minors would be punished with jail time or $50,000 fines. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2004, saying it violates free speech.
However, the government is trying to go around this ruling. Although the government says the information it seeks does not include users' personal information, people should be able to go online without worrying about what they are entering into a search engine. It is understandable to protect children from sexually explicit images, but privacy should not be sacrificed for the sake of bureaucracy.
Unlike the search engines MSN, AOL and Yahoo!, Google has not complied with a subpoena from the government to turn over certain data. According to the Associated Press, the government requested a week's amount of queries as well as a million randomly selected Web addresses from the search engines' databases.
According to a motion filed in federal court by the Justice Department, the government wants to understand web users' behavior and estimate how often they encounter "harmful-to-minor" material. The word harmful, though, is a vague and subjective term. For example, one parent may want to protect their child from nudity, whereas another may differentiate between a Playboy nude and a nude Renaissance painting.
Therefore, parents, not the government, should filter what their children could be exposed to. They probably have a better idea of their own children's personalities and maturity levels than the government anyway.
When trying to define "hard-core pornography," Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his opinion for a 1964 obscenity case, "I know it when I see it." Among other things, the Internet is a widely tool that could be used to find "obscene" content, intentionally or innocently.
However, the government should not use that as an excuse for their actions. When it comes to obscenity and their children, parents will know it when they see it.
The U.S. government wants search engines to turn over data regarding what is being searched online in order to revitalize the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. According to the law, offenders with commercial Web sites that make "harmful" materials available to minors would be punished with jail time or $50,000 fines. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2004, saying it violates free speech.
However, the government is trying to go around this ruling. Although the government says the information it seeks does not include users' personal information, people should be able to go online without worrying about what they are entering into a search engine. It is understandable to protect children from sexually explicit images, but privacy should not be sacrificed for the sake of bureaucracy.
Unlike the search engines MSN, AOL and Yahoo!, Google has not complied with a subpoena from the government to turn over certain data. According to the Associated Press, the government requested a week's amount of queries as well as a million randomly selected Web addresses from the search engines' databases.
According to a motion filed in federal court by the Justice Department, the government wants to understand web users' behavior and estimate how often they encounter "harmful-to-minor" material. The word harmful, though, is a vague and subjective term. For example, one parent may want to protect their child from nudity, whereas another may differentiate between a Playboy nude and a nude Renaissance painting.
Therefore, parents, not the government, should filter what their children could be exposed to. They probably have a better idea of their own children's personalities and maturity levels than the government anyway.
When trying to define "hard-core pornography," Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his opinion for a 1964 obscenity case, "I know it when I see it." Among other things, the Internet is a widely tool that could be used to find "obscene" content, intentionally or innocently.
However, the government should not use that as an excuse for their actions. When it comes to obscenity and their children, parents will know it when they see it.