I do support the benefits of monitoring the "indecent" information available to children on the Internet. However, I also agree with the decision the the term "indecent" has not been defined well enough to base an entire law on it. Judge Buckwalter state "It seems to me that due process, particularly in the area of criminal statutes, requires more than one vague, undefined word, 'indecent'" (3). Maybe if the word indecent was taken out of the CDA and replaced with a specific, etailed list of what would be considered illegal, it could stand before the Supreme Court.
As it stands, the CDA is unconstitutional based upon the First Amendment. Supreme Court cases have held that indecency standards cannot be applied to printed material (7). The courts cannot begin to treat printed words and eletronic words differently. In the next century printed matter will begin to decline as more electronic pubications appear on the Internet. What will be the First Amendment protection of printed material then?
A voluntary rating system allowing sites to be rated based upon questionable content might be a solution. Rating a site doesn't necessarily mean it's censored. Instead it could mean that page authors support the protection of those underage from "indecent" material. But still, being voluntary, that type of rating system would have holes in it and leave some pages open for children to view.
Because it is also known as the"World Wide Web," total censorship of all indecent material would be impossible. Information, images, and ideas from every country in the world can be found on the Internet. How can the United States expect other countries to uphold its laws and ban censorship?
Filtering software packages are the best way to protect children fron Internet dangers today. They require parental guidance and monitoring, but isn't that what parents are for? A responsible parent wouldn't let her child roam the streets alone or vegetate in front of a TV for hours on end, why should it be any different with the Internet?