Badpuppy Gay Today

Thursday, 10 April 1997

In spite of the spate of its recent news articles stirring concern about problems on the Internet, the editors of The New York Times, on April 7, stood up against the threat of Internet censorship. The Times' lead editorial, titled "Free Speech and the Internet," is a strong opinion piece, particularly aimed at the prestigious newspaper's 9 readers on the United States Supreme Court. The Court, scheduled in early summer to decide upon the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is described as facing "one of the most significant cases this term."

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) would make it a felony to knowingly transmit indecent material over the Internet, where youngsters may see it. "If the law stands," says the Times, "it would effectively reduce communications on the Internet to a level judged appropriate for children, and make inadvertent criminals of adults and children alike."

The CDA, according to the editorial, is an "ill-advised" and restrictive addition to a broader communications bill for which, before passing the entire bill, Congress held no hearings. If the Supreme Court knocks down this aspect of the bill, says the Times, it will "honor free speech and send a useful message to lawmakers to tread carefully before intervening in this constitutionally sensitive realm."

Fortunately, the Times editorialists explain, a "sound blue print" is available for judges on the Supreme Court to study because of an "eloquent" decision by a panel consisting of three Philadelphia judges who blocked enforcement of the 1996 CDA act. "After a hearing which amounted to a crash course on the Internet," says the Times, "the panel correctly determined that Congress had placed unconstitutionally vague and overly broad restrictions on what adults can see and publish."

The editorial also rejects any view which puts Internet access in the same category as access to TV and radio. Children, it says, can easily tune in to radios and TV's simply by pressing a knob or a button. The Internet, on the other hand, requires that users "must actively search out the materials they want to see." Further, although the Times makes no mention it, credit cards, such as those used by subscribers to Badpuppy's website, help to guarantee that subscribers are, in fact, adults. As a practical matter, however, the Times says that because the Internet is a global medium, "no domestic law can effectively protect children from inappropriate material." The Clinton Administration failed in its attempt to sell the idea of government spies on the Internet to 29 nations, although on March 26, the administration proposed draft legislation which would, for the first time, impose domestic restrictions. (See "President Clinton Becomes Big Brother" GayToday, March 31.)

Strangely, in an article appearing on page 1 of the Times in the same issue, an article which follows the newspaper's regular feed of Internet "scare" news has been published. "Computers Are the Future," says the headline, "but Remain Unready for It." The sub-headline asks, "When Ball Drops in '99 Will Systems Go Down?" GayToday's editorial staff believes such "scares" are given space because the Times editorial and news departments operate independently of one another.

The editorial celebrates a Supreme Court decision last week that upheld content-neutral rules requiring cable broadcasters to carry local over-the-air broadcast stations. "Though the Court split 5 to 4," said the Times, "the justices seemed unanimous that Congress must have a persuasive justification to impose content-based restrictions limiting free speech." On this basis, according to the editorial, "the Communications Decency Act surely fails."