Internet Pornography Regulation

The issue of whether pornographic materials accessible online should be regulated by the government is hotly contested at the moment, and has been for over a decade. Bill after bill has been proposed for tighter regulation of internet pornography, however the majority have been shot down by congress, due to the ever present concern of violating the 1^st Amendment right to Free Speech. Is it possible to keep harmful pornographic material out of the reach of minors, and maintain adult rights to view what they wish? Although there are concerns to the contrary due to the 1^st Amendment pressures, it is apparent from looking at the regulation proposed by foreign governments that the internet can in fact be regulated without losing economic or social freedoms for adults.

When defending an unregulated internet, there are two primary schools of thought which have prevailed since the introduction of the issue, who are on either extreme of the regulation argument. The first of these is the moralistic viewpoint, that which says that pornography is fundamentally wrong (often from a basis originating in organized religion) and therefore should be regulated not only to prevent access from innocent minors, but also to protect consenting adults. This case is a matter of personal opinion, and is generally held as a matter of unwavering belief rather than organized argument, and therefore will not be discussed here. A more important counterpoint, and one which has been utilized by congress multiple times to drop bills extending internet regulation, is the right to free speech. However this places undue strain on parents who have to monitor their children's internet usage constantly without proper protective measures, and does not take into account pornographic materials which are illegal on or off the internet, such as child pornography.

Figures suggest that there are at least 300 million sexually explicit Web pages on the internet. (Gale). One study suggests that nearly 372 million Web pages containing pornography are readily accessible, and 2.5 billion pornographic e-mails are sent each day (Science Activities). With these reams of pornographic material available for access at any time on the internet, it's no wonder groups have arose in an attempt to put order to the chaos. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an organization dedicated to free speech on the internet, who came up with the concept of age restriction software used by the discretion of the offending company. Websites which offer EFF compliant restrictions to their members, namely credit card checks or age restrictive firewalls, are offered a minimal subsidy from the government. However, there are no current mandatory requirements for sites to offer these sorts of age restrictions towards possible members. In a survey of adult-oriented commercial sites, the majority of adult-oriented sites (about 74%) were found to display adult content on the first page, accessible to anyone who visited the page, often through the display of sexually explicit banner ads to other sites. Only 3% required a credit card or other 'adult check' to proceed past the first page of the site. (Youth, Pornography and the Internet)

Though regulation technically exists in America, it is often unenforced. The first attempt to regulate pornography on the Internet was the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which prohibited the "knowing" transmission of "indecent" messages to minors and the publication of materials which depict, in a manner "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs", unless those materials were protected from access by minors, for example by the use of credit card systems. This act was immediately struck down in an attempt to preserve the right to free speech, as Justice Felix Frankfurter put it, it was "reducing the adult population to reading only what is fit for children" (Glassner). In 1998 the Child Online Protection Act was signed into law by President Clinton, which called for penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to six months in prison for making material deemed "harmful to minors" available online without restrictions, regardless its value for adults (Gale). This act was struck down in 2002 by a supreme court ruling but brought back to the forefront in 2004, where it was deemed an issue for lower, provisional courts to argue. It remains the only official government internet regulation act in relation to pornography today. Though this law is in place, it is rarely enforced, and some investigators have gone as far as to say there has never been an adequately enforced case since the introduction of the COPA.

According to a 1999 TIME /CNN teen poll, 44% of teens ages 13 to 17 said they had "seen websites that are X-rated or have sexual content." This is a clear indication that current regulations are not functioning correctly (this was at the height of the COPA effectiveness). According to a June 2001 Pew Internet & American Life survey, 15% of online teens ages 12 to 17 "say they have lied about their age to gain access to a Web site--an action that is often required in gaining access to pornographic sites. One quarter of boys ages 15 to 17 have said they were older than they are in order to gain access to a Web site. This indicates that EFF subsidies aren't nearly as effective as they might hope, since even sights supporting the EFF only have to make children verify that they are in fact 18. According to a December 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study, 70% of teens ages 15-17 had "accidentally come across" pornography while on the Internet. Of these teens, 55% said "being exposed to pornography would have a serious impact on kids under 18." It should be clear that the COPA does not do an effective job of regulating the media consumption of minors and requires revision.

It is important to note that some opposition to internet regulation says that the internet is too large and too pervasive to be properly controlled, and that any attempt to do so would place too much attention on taxpayers. These proponents for a lack of internet regulation generally say that parents should do a better job of monitoring their children's internet access rather than asking the government to step in and provide enforcement measures. According to February 2002 Nielsen/NetRatings, "nearly 16% of visitors to adult-oriented Web sites were under the age of 18." According to a Spring 2003 survey conducted online for Symantec Corp., "more than 80% of children (ages 7 to 18) surveyed receive inappropriate spam on a daily basis...Half of the kids surveyed reported feeling uncomfortable and offended when seeing improper email content." Parents simply aren't able to monitor their children as closely as is required, especially with how important the internet has become for everyday usage, even for children. Modern user centric measures are moving towards the limelight, including enhanced child protection security embedded in Microsoft's new Vista operating system, however if history is any indication, these countermeasures will be easily bypassed by both children and online pornography retailers.

Other countries have a slightly different approach to internet regulation protocols than the United States, and could be used as a model for possible government action preventing access by minors. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is a government sanctioned media regulator. Since 2000, the ACMA has invoked a complaints mechanism that allows members of the Australian public to submit complaints to ACMA about offensive and illegal internet content. If the prohibited content is hosted natively, the ACMA will direct the internet content host to remove the content from its service. If prohibited content is not hosted in Australia, the ACMA notifies the suppliers of accredited filters. Between January 2000 and June 2006, the ACMA received over 5,000 complaints from the public about offensive and illegal internet content hosted in Australia and overseas, resulting in the removal or blocking of almost 4,000 individual items of online content. In this way, offensive content is easily tracked by community involvement, and there is no need for a tax premium to pay for over-large monitoring services policing the entirety of the internet. There are legitimate concerns as to the 1^st Amendment rights and the strain any sort of regulation places on these primary laws. However, with a careful balance in regulations, those which regulate internet content for minors and leave content unrestricted for consenting adults, internet regulation of pornography can do more good than harm. With content regulation originating at the community level rather than at the government level, enhanced regulation can not only protect minors, but do so at a minimal cost.