I wrote the following years ago about the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1997 in Congress's first reaction to the Internet, but since struck down by the Supreme Court (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/). In general I am not willing to take the time to write a political blog, and I am usually reticent about public expressions of my personal opinions, so I am not keeping my published views on these matters up to date.

Subsequent developments suggest I underestimated the amount of "information" and misinformation, especially about sexual matters, that the Internet would soon make widely available. In general, I continue to support free and open access to information by all people in all countries and situations. I can see an argument for some limits, especially with information that enables acts of violence, but am not sure where the line should be drawn or who should draw it. I would encourage scientific, religious, and other groups to develop "seals of approval" or rating systems for sites they consider accurate or inaccurate, as indeed many have. I think there is far too little social support for parents trying to protect their children from the irresponsibility of adults. I also, however, hope that young people are being taught to read critically and take skeptical, thoughtful positions toward whatever they find on the Internet.

I have the following concerns about the Communications Decency Act (CDA) just passed by Congress.

1. The CDA seems to exaggerate and sensationalize the possibility that unsupervised children will encounter pornography on the Internet. Yet it ignores the vast quantities of gratuitously salacious material that American children are exposed to every day through advertising, broadcast television, and other media.

2. Despite its professed concern to protect people under 18, the CDA does nothing to promote thoughtful dialogue about the potential, goals, or content of sex education in the United States. The Internet in fact makes it possible for a wider range of people than ever before to take part in serious discussion and information-sharing about human sexuality: not only specialists in the biological and behavioral sciences, but everyone who has experienced puberty.

3. The apparent willingness to equate "communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" with whatever is "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards," takes the risk of criminalizing discussion of the behaviors and feelings of people with minority or stigmatized sexual identities. Not only does everyone, specialist and non-specialist alike, have the right to be fully informed about the entire spectrum of human sexuality, but those individuals -- including adolescents -- who find themselves struggling with their own emerging identity have a profound need to discuss their experiences with others who are in the same situation, and to obtain information that can help them learn compassion for themselves.

4. The preoccupation with sexual decency is not matched by a comparable concern for the many acts and representations of violent behavior that are so pervasive in our society. The relentless packaging of violence as exciting and entertaining, even by communications media that claim to be presenting "news" or "drama," ought to fit anyone's definition of "obscene."

5. Finally, there seems to be a real danger that the CDA could have far-reaching effects, abridging constitutional and basic human rights to free speech and freedom of information in areas well beyond the issue of "decency" that the act explicitly addresses.

Peter Jeffery