Internet Rating Systems Censors by Default
" Internet Rating Systems: Censors by Default" The Internet, first designed for the military and the scientific community, has grown larger and faster than anyone could have ever expected. Now being a potpourri of information, from business to entertainment, the Internet is quickly gaining respect as a useful and important tool in thousands of applications, both globally and domestically. But, the growth that the Internet has seen in the last few years has come with some growing pains. Reports of harmful information reaching children are always painful to hear; who wouldn't feel for a mother who lost a child to a pipe bomb that was built from instructions on the Internet? But the greatest pain thus far has been the issue of accessibility of pornography on the Internet, and it has many parents concerned. But is it as big of a threat as the media would like us to think, or has it been a bit exaggerated? On July 3, 1995, Time Magazine published a story called "On a screen near you: Cyberporn." This article discussed the types of pornography that could be found on the Internet such as, Pedophilia, S and M, urination, defecation, bestiality, and everything else in between. In Julia Wilkins' Humanist articl
Likewise in Tim Haight's article, "Do We Need Internet Content Rating", he agrees users have the right to protect themselves and their children, but it needs to be done without any burden or effect on the rights of others (2). In effect setting off many child protection and religious groups who were being fueled more by inaccurate data and a "Moral Panic " type attitude, than the facts (1). in Beeson 2)The bottom line, according to Julia Wilkins, is that children are very much the minority on the web and for every child on the Web there is an adult paying for it. "The Platform for Internet Content Selection"(PICS) is the newest labeling scheme that is being embraced by Internet industry leaders. This legislation made its way to the Telecommunication Reform Package, and ultimately to the Communication Decency Act (CDA). This would again infringe upon the rights of the Net user both foreign and domestic, and devaluate the rich resources that we find on the web today. " They also state that "despite all good intentions. 5 percent of the pictures on the Internet were pornographic. They urge industry leaders, policy makers, children groups and the Internet users "to engage in genuine debate about free speech ramifications of the rating and blocking systems being proposed. Lets face it, the rest of the world gets a lot closer on the Internet. This would convince most, that a labeling system is inappropriate for the Internet, but there are many more holes in the PICS scheme. But, the free speech groups have some ammunition on their side, the first amendment for one and the technological shortcomings of the PICS system second. Bringing big business and the government together to discuss the strategies of the subject was an image booster for both parties, but little else. According to ACLU, the new threat is hiding in the smoke screen of Internet rating systems (Beeson 2). It's wrong because the cost and burden of such a task "would effectively shut most noncommercial speakers out of the Internet marketplace" (Beeson 6).
Common topics in this essay:
Content Rating,
Streinhardt ACLU,
According ACLU,
Reno ACLU,
Net Protection,
Default Internet,
America Beeson,
Town University,
CNN Microsoft,
Content SelectionPICS,
free speech,
pics system,
protect children,
qtd beeson,
according aclu,
industry leaders,
labeling system,
beeson 6,
rating systems,
rating system,
free speech advocacy,
parental level blocking,
communication decency act,
pics system technological,
pics system pursued,
|
Acceptance Essays
