The Children's Online Protections Act defined "material harmful to minors" as material "appealing to purient interests under current community standards; as depicting or describing sex acts, or a lewd exhibition of genitals or a woman's breasts; and as lacking 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.' "(Thomas). Does this mean that it is fair for the government to decide which web sites are "harmful" and which are not? Whose community standards are they using?
             Pornographic and lewd sites have been on the high end of controversy for at least the past six years. There have been at least three government regulations since 1995 that have tackled the question of free speech on the Internet: The Children's Online Protection Act (1998), The Communications Decency Act (1996), and The Telecommunications Reform Act (1996). All of these have been scrutinized for possibly violating the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. I believe that they do just that.
             Is there such a thing as one community standard for the whole country? What about other countries? What one may deem as pornographic or offensive, another my view as art. The government has been trying to regulate what it defines as sexually offensive for decades, and still has not come up with a way to achieve it. Just look at Hustler.
             If sexually explicit photographs are "harmful to minors", those in power may also view gay and lesbian sites and sexual education sites as "harmful" also. This is just another way of
             the government trying to regulate the amount of sex in the average American's life. I think that it is a parent's right and responsibility to regulate their children's internet usage just as they should do with television.
             In 1996, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Act, which tightened restrictions...