Everyone has read horror stories about the abundance of pornography on the Internet and the growing number of stalkers who cruise the Internet looking for easy prey (Gill 176; Gilbert). But just how much of a problem is there? Many school districts across the country have assumed there will be problems. Rather than help their teachers prepare for possibilities, schools have installed "cyber patrol" programs that block access to Websites that may contain sensitive material. A more effective solution is for schools to encourage students to develop a sense of self-discipline and to help them learn how to select or reject materials themselves.

The Supreme Court struck down the Censorship Decency Act (CDA), which would have blocked indecent material for the schools. The authors of CDA had proposed a legal way of controlling the exchange of what they referred to as "indecent" material on the Internet (Stecher). Responding to the fears of parents and special interest groups, they designed a bill that would have changed the nature of the Internet. They thought that the Internet was more like television or radio than like print and assumed that so-called "service providers," the companies that offer Internet services, could be responsible for the content of information on their sites. Contesting the bill on the basis that it violated the First Amendment, the ACLU maintained that the CDA would, in effect, limit the kinds of private messages that people would be willing to trust sending to each other on such topics as abortion and AIDS ("US Judges").

Internet fans were encouraged by the justices' decision. The justices clearly had begun to understand the way the Internet works. Justice John Paul Stevens understood that the Communications Decency Act would have threatened "to torch a large segment of the Internet community" (qtd. in Schwartz and Biskupic 17). He and the other justices recognized that the problems censorship would cause are worse than the potential benefits.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't offer solutions to the smut overflow on the Web. Without knowing what to do, schools and parents turned to apparent solutions—cyber-patrol software that can be installed on home and school computers, and ratings systems that alert viewers to the nature of sites they are about to see. Ultimately, these solutions are inappropriate. Cyber-patrol software is unreliable, and questionable sites are not likely to use rating systems. The best solution is the one that puts the responsibility for viewing into the hands of the individual—either child, teacher, or parent.

So-called surf-patrol programs claim to be foolproof but are not at all reliable. According to the authors of "A Dozen Reasons Why Schools Should Avoid Filtering," within fourteen minutes they were able to find many sites with pornographic content. For "even though cybersnoopers often employ knowbots and spiders to dig up and then filter any site which includes the use of various words such as sex and naked, the enemy is also clever, changing its spelling to baffle and confound the electronic hounds" (1).

Clearly, cyber-patrol programs don't block all indecent sites. As one example of the cleverness of "the enemy," let me offer a personal example. A surf-patrol program wouldn't have blocked out the site I found last year as I searched for information about the Heavensgate cult for a college research paper. Here's what happened. I searched for "heavensgate" using InfoSeek. Next, I clicked on the top-ranked "hit" from InfoSeek, which welcomed all those interested in the Heavensgate incident. Jake's porno shop appeared on the screen. I exited right away and figured out how this had happened. The word "heavensgate" was repeated about two hundred times in the abstract that the site developers submitted to InfoSeek and to other search engines. Lesson learned: read the abstract before clicking on the results of a search!

Nor do cyber-patrol programs give students and teachers open access to material they may want for justifiable purposes. For example, a teacher in my hometown has told me that she couldn't even retrieve Shakespeare's plays. The program used in her district, Net Nanny, blocked any sites that use sexually explicit terms (Moreno).

The judges who wrote the Communications Decency Act had a sincere interest in protecting children from the dangers of the Internet. They felt that the law, which carried fines up to $250,000 and prison terms of up to five years, would protect children from pornography. Unfortunately, the kind of censorship that the CDA advocated would have had too many negative effects to make it worthwhile. Because the judges didn't suggest a solution to the censorship problem, schools and families and individuals continue to grapple with the issue, offering useless solutions that attempt to take the responsibility for blocking indecent or pornographic sites away from the individual viewer.

The only sensible, long-term solution is self-discipline. It is essential that people develop their own inner sense of what is decent and what isn't. It is also critical that teachers and parents help children develop the skills needed to safely navigate the Internet. As more and more people understand the Internet and learn how to use it responsibly, it is less and less likely that the government will be called on again to legislate decency.

It is not going to be easy for teachers or parents to figure out ways to teach self-discipline and at the same time teach students how to search effectively. After all, if students learn how to search effectively, they will be able to locate any material they want. That is where the self-discipline comes in. If students develop a sense of the value of the Internet for democracy, they may willingly impose some discipline on themselves. A Website called "Legal Pad Junior" is one example of the kind of Internet development that would help teachers and parents help young people. This Internet site focuses on introducing young people to the legal field. It is, however, also fun to use, and it encourages children to see themselves as equal partners with adults on the Web. The site contains a legal directory, hints for Internet users, a "Kidz Zone," a "Teenz Connection," a place called the "Clubhouse," and an area called "i-SAFE Connection," which invites students to join discussions of Internet safety.

It is essential that children learn how the Internet has developed and how to use it effectively for information gathering. It is also important that children learn how to avoid unsafe Internet sites and how to protect themselves if they stumble on them or if they are approached by unsavory individuals. As the "Charter of Children's Rights in Telematic Networks" proclaims: "A child who has not been given the opportunity to learn how to manage the world of tomorrow . . . will have minor chances of success."

---

Works Cited

"A Charter of Children's Rights in Telematic Networks." Sept. 1996. 10 Dec. 1997. <http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens2.html>.

"A Dozen Reasons Why Schools Should Avoid Filtering." From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 5.5 (1996): 1-5. 10 Nov. 1997. <http://fromnowon.org/mar96/whynot.html>.

Gilbert, Steven. "Welcome to the Internet: Nightmare or Paradise?" American Association of Higher Education Bulletin 46.7 (1994): 3-4.

Gill, Mark Stuart. "Terror On-Line." Vogue Jan. 1995: 163-67+.

"Legal Pad Junior." 10 Dec. 1997. <http://www.legalpadjr.com/>.

Moreno, Dan. Personal communication. 10 Nov. 1997.

Schwartz, John, and Joan Biskupic. "High Court Allows Bans on Assisted Suicide, Strikes down Law Restricting Online Speech: First Amendment Applies to Internet, Justices Say." Washington Post 27 July 1997: A1+.

Stecher, Jamie B. "ACLU v. Reno--the Case to Overturn the CDA." Ethical Spectacle (19 Feb. 1997). 8 Nov. 1997. <http://www.spectacle.org/cda/cdamn.html>.

"US Judges Declare Internet Decency Law Unconstitutional." Nando Times (29 July 1996). 10 Nov. 1997. <http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntm/info/072996/info25_6695.html>.