X the communications decency act48 The Communications Decency Act The Communications Decency Act that was signed into law by President Clinton over a year ago is clearly in need of serious revisions due, not only to its vagueness, but mostly due to the fact that the government is infringing on our freedom of speech, may it be indecent or not. The Communications Decency Act, also know by Internet users as the CDA, is an Act that aims to remove indecent or dangerous text, lewd images, and other things deemed inappropriate from public areas of the net. The CDA is mainly out to protect children. In the beginning, the anonymity of the Internet caused it to become a haven for the free trading of pornography.
The relevant sections of the Act were introduced in response to fears that Internet pornography was on the rise. Indecency in TV and radio broadcasting had already been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission —broadcasting of offensive speech was restricted to certain hours of the day when minors were supposedly least likely to be exposed.
Violators could be fined and potentially lose their licenses. The Internet, however, had only recently been opened to commercial interests by the amendment to the National Science Foundation Act and thus had not been taken into consideration by previous laws.
The CDA, which affected both the Internet and cable televisionmarked the first attempt to expand regulation to these new media. Passed by Congress on February 1, and signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8,  the CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who knowingly A uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or B uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.
It further criminalized the transmission of materials that were "obscene or indecent" to persons known to be under Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn the portion relating to indecent, but not obscene, speech. They argued that speech protected under the First Amendmentsuch as printed novels or the use of the seven dirty wordswould suddenly become unlawful when posted to the Internet.
Critics also claimed the bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of medical information. Legal challenges[ edit ] In Philadelphia on June 12,a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults.
The next month, another US federal court in New York struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad.
American Civil Liberties Unionstating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not carefully define the words "indecent" and "offensive.
Sheawas affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion. A separate challenge to the provisions governing obscenity, known as Nitke v. Gonzaleswas rejected by a federal court in New York in The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision in Court injunction blocked enforcement of the first, the Child Online Protection Act COPAalmost immediately after its passage in ; the law was later overturned.
It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
On July 23,the Attorneys General of 47 states sent a letter to Congress requesting that the criminal and civil immunity in Section be removed. Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, has been banned from Facebook and YouTube.
This has caused a spur amongst the online community of those who feel strongly about freedom of speech. They feel disturbed at the fact, large platforms are dictating what is seen online by the world.
House of Representative by Ann Wagner in April Senate bill introduced by Rob Portman in August The intent is to provide serious, legal consequences for websites that profit from sex trafficking and give prosecutors tools they need to protect their communities and give victims a pathway to justice.The Communications Decency Act Essay - The Communications Decency Act The U.S.
Government should not attempt to place restrictions on the internet. The Internet does not belong to the United States and it is not our responsibility to save the world, so why are we attempting to regulate something that belongs to the world.
Section of Pub. L. –, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of (47 U.S.C. et seq.) by adding section at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections (a), (b).
Essay Communications Decency Act: Regulation In Cyberspace David Hembree October 23, Dr. Willis Being one of millions of surfers throughout the Internet, I see that fundamental civil liberties are as important in cyberspace as they are in traditional contexts.
Cyberspace defined in Webster's Tenth Edition dictionary is the on-line . More Essay Examples on. During the past decennary, society has become progressively dependent upon computing machines, which have the ability to travel big sums of information across big distances rapidly - Communications Decency Act Of Research Essay introduction.
Computerization has influenced everyone & # ; s life. The Communications Decency Act This prompted Congress to pass the Communications Decency Act in The Act contains deceptively simple language under the heading "Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material".
Essay The Communications Decency Act The U.S. Government should not attempt to place restrictions on the internet. The Internet does not belong to the United States and it is not our responsibility to save the world, so why are we attempting to regulate something that belongs to the world?
The Telecommunications Reform Act has done exactly that, put regulations on the Internet.