ildren explore. Society as a whole generally tries to protect children, but there are no social or physical constraints to Internet surfing. For this reason, there have been numerous attempts at censoring the Internet in the name of protecting children.
             The Communications Decency Act, backed by such groups as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition, would have made it illegal to transmit "indecent" material to children online, had it not been struck down by the Supreme Court. The problem with such legislation is that the Internet unlike television, radio, or print, is used by a global audience unaffected by the strength of broadcast signals or the location of paper routes. For this very reason, provincial definitions of "pornography" or "indecent material" cannot be applied to the Internet without abridging First Amendment protection. To ban pornography from the Internet would be to curtail a medium that is fully deserving of the right to free speech. (Communications Decency Act)
             "By imposing broadcast-style content regulations on the open, decentralized Internet, the CDA severely restricts the first amendment rights of all Americans and threatens the very existence of the Internet itself. Although well intentioned, the CDA can never be effective at controlling content on a global medium, where a web site in Sweden is as close as a site in Boston. The CIEC case is based on the argument that the only effective and constitutional way to control children's access to objectionable material on the Internet is to rely on user control." (The Internet Is Not A Television)
             However, the three judge panel in Philadelphia's Federal Court that heard the CDA case unanimously disagreed. The CDA was ruled out on 12 June 1996. In its conclusion, the Federal Court said:
             "...the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the C...