OnlineHost: Copyright 1996 America Online, Inc. CJ Ellen: Good afternoon and welcome to the AnswerMan conference. Kevin Savetz (Netanswers) is your host. Netanswers: Hi Ellen, hi everyone. CJ Ellen: Kevin, want to begin today's controversial topic? Netanswers: Sure. CJ Ellen: The audience is ready and so am I. :) Netanswers: Can you really say what you want on the Internet? That's the topic for today. The Internet is a truly amazing and open public forum, but it is being pulled in so many different directions by its users, the government, online services and other factions that you may be asking yourself that question... Can I really say what I want on the Internet? Netanswers: If you have a question or comment, press the Interact With Host button, otherwise we can't hear you :-) CJ Ellen: Kevin, our first question, rather, comment is from YR sonic, who says: Comment: I just want to say that anyone who tries to control the Internet is playing a losing gam because it's too big and so censorship is just a waste of time. Netanswers: That is a good point, the Net may be too big to censor on a large scale. Related to that, Internet users are very clever. They devise ways -- at least they have so far -- to work around censorship attempts. For instance, anonymous remailers can let you post material without any possibility of the world discovering who you are. Remailers are pretty easy to program... no matter what the law says. CJ Ellen: Kevin, our next question asks about government censorship. Could you also include an explanation of the current CDA? (that question I rephrased was from Dale 63763) Netanswers: The government does want to censor the Internet. It recently passed a law, called the CDA--Communications Decency Act--which makes obscene and indecent material on the Net illegal. (This law is currently on hold pending a court decision about its constitutionality.) The CDA is an attempt to make the Net "safe" for kids, but many say it is a misguided attempt in that it will reduce the level of discussion on the Net to that which is appropriate for children. No legitimate talk about abortion, rape, or other adult issues. CJ Ellen: Our next comment comes from AGeff: Comment: I think we should be allowed to say things we want on the Net. Just today,I got kicked off AOL for saying obscene things. Netanswers: That raises an important point. AOL is NOT the Internet. The Internet has its own informal rules, called Netiquette.... and although AOL provides ACCESS to the Internet, it is a different thing. AOL is a commercial online service with _formal, written_ rules called Terms of Service, which say (among other things) that you can't be obscene. You may not agree with the TOS, but as AOL users we are bound by them. We can talk about whether they are appropriate, but that's a different question. In short: AOL is a company, and it needs to protect itself, the TOS is one way it can do that. CJ Ellen: Continuing the discussion re children, AOL, and the Net, RBarragan asks: Question: We have AOL online at our school. Is there a way to keep children away from obscene materials all the time? Netanswers: First and foremost, the way to keep kids safe online is to work WITH them when they are online -- AOL or the Internet. Guide them, and keep them away from inappropriate material. On AOL, you can use keyword: PARENTAL CONTROLS to keep certain screen names on your account from accessing newsgroups, chat, or the Web. This can be helpful, but that feels to me a bit like locking the library doors because there are some dirty books inside. There ARE some sickos on AOL and the Internet. You can use PARENTAL CONTROLS and software like SurfWatch to help. But you being there is the best solution, IMO. CJ Ellen : Kevin, SuzlWas wants your opinion on the CDA. Question: I am doing a report for a college club on this subject. Thank you. Do you think the CDA is a bad idea or just not well thought out? Netanswers: I think it is garbage. I believe that the court will throw it out for being too broad, HOWEVER I do think that Congress will eventually pass a law limiting a more narrow subset of speech -- such as child pornography (which I think most of us would approve of) and perhaps obscenity on general. The problem with the CDA as it stands is that it limits the vague and undefined term "indecent material." "Indecency" is NOT illegal in other media, why should it be limited on the Internet? CJ Ellen: Kevin, talking government censorship, Web Willy asks: Question: What about hate groups? Should "obscene" materials be censored while hate is allowed to stand? Netanswers: That's a really good question--one that I don't have an answer to. I do have an opinion though... CJ Ellen: Well, we want your opinion. :) Netanswers: If material is legal when printed on paper, as hate group material, however vile, is, it should be legal on the Internet. The 1st Amendment is the 1st Amendment. Should it be abridged just becuase you're using electrons instead of ink? I don't think so. I don't advocate hate speech, but I tend to lean towards freedom of expression over censorship. CJ Ellen: Kevin, our next question is from AGeff: Question: Why doesn't AOL and the Net make different spaces only for children and others for only adults and lock out the kids? Netanswers: A proposed standard is doing that. It is a rating system that rates Web pages based on their content: CompuServe is the first major online service to provide ratings on all its Internet content. Users with a Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) compatible Web browser will be able to tune out Web sites based on their violence, language, nudity, and sexual content. CompuServe is encouraging third-party content providers, including individuals with home pages on the service, to follow suit. Netanswers: Will the other online services follow this lead? I think so. I bet AOL will eventually use this on another system, as will Netscape. Netizens can spot the lesser of two evils -- 'tis better to censor yourself than be censored by someone else.The question for me is: who does the rating? The person who created the Web page (who could lie) or some group (like the movie ratings board)? CJ Ellen: Kevin, our last question comes from Valient 24, who has a strong opinion about the CDA: Question: Isn't the TeleCommunications bill just another way for the gov't to futher their chokehold on the American public's basic human rights? Netanswers: To some extent, every time the government legislates ANYTHING, it is taking away our rights to do something :) The question to take home with you today is: is free speech a basic human right in the US? (Hey, it IS the First amendment.) And at what point does use/abuse of that right overly infringe on other, perhaps more important rights, such as the right to not have a picture of a 9-year-old girl having sex, on the Internet or in a magazine? I don't know. But I don't like the CDA as it is written. Netanswers: That's all the time we have -- for more fun with the Internet, check out keyword ANSWERMAN. Thanks, Ellen! CJ Ellen: Thanks, Kevin. Good afternoon everyone. OnlineHost: Copyright 1996 America Online, Inc.