Lying Down With Dogs

They're talking about it in the Bundestag and they're petrified of it in Beijing. In Washington, DC, they like it, but fear it will spiral out of control. Governments around the globe have caught Internet fever and are struggling to regulate this new electronic behemoth.

The Internet is our Frankenstein: it is the product of our own hands, yet we are unsure of how and whether we can control it. It fascinates us, simultaneously awing and frightening us with its tremendous power. It heralds a new age of information and allows virtually unrestrained communication. But will it, if unregulated, destroy our values?

Congress grappled with this question in the debate over the recently passed Telecommunications Act and is catching hell for having done so. The Act, which contains the now infamous "indecency provision," has come under fire as a direct assault on free speech. Though the act explicitly supports the Internet, it aims to restrict "children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material" by declaring "indecent" content illegal in cyberspace.

The opponents of the act are strange bedfellows indeed. The American Civil Liberties Union is contesting the new law and has already won a restraining order against its enforcement, pending the court's judgment. They are joined by anarchist militia types who think the United States is on the brink of tossing the Constitution into the garbage and who are ready at any moment to rise up against the government to destroy it.

Here's an except from one such man's Web page, advocating different methods of civil disobedience should the courts uphold the law:

"Post lewd passages from the Bible to Christian groups. Start a spirited discussion on how Lot's daughter would have been raped by the mob, if they'd accepted her. Contemplate the positions used by Noah and his daughters...Make sure, you do this in groups frequented by 'Christian Youth'--or better yet, their parents!"

Disregarding his ignorance of biblical history (it was Lot who slept with his daughters, not Noah), ask yourself: If I am against censorship, is this what I want to be associated with? These militant rightists don't care about kids; a cursory look at their rhetoric makes that fact plain. Are left-wing groups challenging this law overlooking the possibility that the Telecommunications Act was a clumsy but noble effort to control the harmful effects of a new technology?

The Telecommunications Act is a sloppy piece of legislation, no doubt. Its definitions of indecency are vague and even if upheld by the courts, it promises to be virtually unenforceable. It is a quick, dirty and unsophisticated attempt at technological regulation.

But Henry Hyde and his cohorts are fools, not the Big Brothers of American values. Theirs was a bungling effort to do what must be done: ensuring that new technologies do the best possible job of serving our society.

To be against violence and pornography is not to be against freedom of expression. Those of us that believe that with freedom comes responsibility are not un-American. Why don't we hear liberal politicians, who presumably do care about kids, proposing concrete alternatives to the admittedly unworkable agenda of the indecency clause? There are alternatives to censorship, but we seldom hear about them.

Take NET NANNY, a service that allows parents to screen certain Web sites. Parents should look into Surf-Watch, a tool that continually updates a list of "not-for-children" sites. Why aren't politicians plugging BESS, an Internet service provider designed for kids, families, and schools?

The answer is that they are afraid to broach the subject of values. Well, it's time to start speaking up. Militant anarchists deny the lack of values in America; responsible liberals should recognize that problem while fighting faulty solutions.

There's an old Yiddish saying: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Unless liberal rights advocates start proposing alternate solutions to the real social problems of the day, they will need a good shampooing.

Ethan M. Tucker's column appears on alternate Thursdays.