As a relatively new media form, the Internet raises legal concerns never encountered before. The ability for individuals to post content to open audiences without screening may be interpreted as both a strength and weakness of the online world. Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell identifies the Internet “as the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” Not everyone receives the opportunity or possesses the money to publish a book, but on the Internet individuals become their own publisher. Its interactive nature, accessibility to the international public, and infinite supply of knowledge are just a few of its appealing and unique features. Via this global computer network, virtually anyone in the world can search the ‘information superhighway,’ upload pictures or videos, play games, and communicate with other users. The possibilities online are endless and evolving.
Yet, a closer examination of the complex Internet reveals it is not a completely free medium of expression. Many feel this much freedom and access is precisely the problem. Coinciding with the popular growth of the Internet in the mid ‘90s, laws have restricted offensive sexual content, especially from younger viewers. Congress passed various bills, both successful and flawed, representing the difficult and confusing balancing act between First Amendment rights and the protection rights of minors.
Federal government lawyer Seth P. Waxman said in 1997 during the case of Reno v. ACLU, “The Internet threatens to give every child a free pass into the equivalent of every adult bookstore and every adult video store in the country.” Waxman believes the Internet “threatens to give children a free pass,” meaning the Internet holds a seemingly likely potential to harm minors, not that it certainly will. When protecting children from Internet obscenity and indecency, the responsibility lies with the parents and school, by educating the youth about the dangers of the Internet and implementing filters and other technological blocks or controls. The government’s function is to maintain the Founding’s Father’s intentions of freedom of speech and expression for all. Most importantly, censorship is a not characteristic of a true democracy. The only authority the government should preserve regarding Internet obscenity is to provide a safeguard for children who tragically fall victim to and participator in the production of child pornography.
Lastly, a society’s definition of obscene changes over time. Many decades ago women who wore pants were frowned upon. Rock music was once considered inappropriate and evil. Just because the majority or “average person” finds something obscene does not mean the minority or an anomaly is unjustified in believing the material is acceptable. Obscenity is relative to an individual’s upbringing, education, culture, judgment, morals, and norms, regardless of his or her encompassing community standards. The government should not dictate what constitutes beauty. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”