Internet Editorial Dissents Were Ignorant

The two dissenters to the Crimson's staff editorial ("Congress Must Not Restrict the Internet", Feb. 14, 1996) put forward claims about the Communications Decency Act and censorship in general that are factually incorrect and morally questionable.

Christopher R. McFadden asserts that without the Communications Decency Act the state would be "handcuff[ed]" in attempts to keep pornography out of the hands of minors. This is incorrect.

For better or for worse, both the federal government and the state of Massachusetts have adopted extensive legislation to stem obscenity. Explicitly or by judicial decision (such as in the recent case of U.S. v. Thomas), such laws have been found applicable to computers. In addition, laws such as Massachusetts Chapter 272, Section 48, specifically prohibit the provision of obscenity to minors. Further intrusive-as well as far more expansive-legislation is simply unnecessary.

Michael E. Ginsberg asserts that "pictures of naked people" are not protected by the First Amendment. Apparently Ginsberg would be unperturbed if, say, Michelangelo's David was censored, or if any parent or artist that took a photograph of a naked child was arrested-the recent case of Harvard Extension student Toni Marie Angeli being only the most recent example of such prosecutions/persecutions.

With rare exception-such as under the strict terms of obscenity-speech does not need to be proven "worthy" to be protected. Only people with delusions of godhood think that they can determine what products magnanimously will be offered in the "market-place of ideas."

Further, Ginsberg states that '[a]ny attack on indecent material is no infringement of the First Amendment." This is incorrect. Indecency, as defined by the FCC (which will enforce the Communications Decency Act), does not lack the protection of the First Amendment; indecency is distinct from obscenity.

For better or worse, indecency until now has been considered regulable because the radio/TV airwave spectrum is finite. But the courts have ruled that indecency cannot be banned entirely from the airwaves. By extension, it certainly should not be banned from the Internet, through which a practically infinite amount of communication is possible. It is disappointing that while exercising (what is left) of their First Amendment rights, some Crimson staffers have chosen to editorialize from positions of ignorance. --Jol Silversmith '94