During the early 1980’s, I was a student at St. Ignatius Loyola Grammar School in New York City. St. Ignatius was the first Catholic school in the Archdiocese of New York to purchase computers for use by the student body.
The faculty and administration at my grammar school had added the new computer classes to the curriculum for the upper grades so that we could become competitive with other New York City students in the field of computer science. The year I was in seventh grade at St. Ignatius we worked on old Apple computers, and learned about BASIC computer programming, some of which is now obsolete. Now, almost fifteen years later, schools from New York to California have Pentiums; computers have become the norm, not the exception. But, as with all technology, the bad comes with the good. I am sure Sister Helen back at St. Ignatius never dreamed that cyberpornography would ever become a threat to her schoolchildren.
Computer pornography can be traced to the rapid spread of the Internet. Soft- and hard-core porn alike are now widely available online. One group, entitled Amateur Action, had a get-rich-quick scheme selling graphic computer images of children who had been raped and women who had been tortured. Until recently, such purveyors were virtually unrestricted by any laws prohibiting their odious activity.
Public outrage over the problem of cyberporn brought about a frenzy in Washington as different pro-family groups lobbied Congress to introduce legislation that sought to limit the cyberporn industry.
Some pro-family groups were instrumental in the passage of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA is part of the Telecommunications Deregulation Act, which was passed by the Republican Congress and signed by the president earlier this year. The CDA contains provisions that regulate pornographic material on the Internet. Specifically, the CDA uses the indecency standard, which “prohibits the knowing promulgation to children of all pornographic material,” and the “harmful to minors” standard, which outlaws the distribution to children of material viewed as clearly damaging to young people.
The CDA is a step toward reducing the harmful effects of cyberporn, but it is certainly not without its limitations and does not ensure the end of cyberporn problems. For example, it contains specific language that would protect access providers, who would make millions of dollars distributing pornography to children and other Internet surfers. Furthermore, the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia recently ruled against the Communications Decency Act, calling legal efforts to protect children from pornography “repugnant.” The CDA was challenged in Philadelphia by the American Civil Liberties Union and various computer interests like CompuServe and American Online. Now, the Department of Justice will appeal the Philadelphia federal court ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Ultimately, we know that the problem of cyberporn is one that must be tackled both through individual responsibility and strong law enforcement. Federal legislation is no substitute for parental discretion.
One organization, Enough Is Enough, publishes parental safeguards that are a “must-have” for all parents. In its brochure, the group gives parents such tips as, “Keep kids out of `chat’ or ‘CB’ sections,” or “If you subscribe to an online service or BBS, check to see if they offer pornography of any kind. If so … consider canceling your subscription.”
Equally important is the role the law will have to play in the debate over cyberporn. Since parents will not always be able to protect their children from cyberporn, particularly if their children are using neighbors’ computers or public computers with no adult supervision, the best legal approach to the cyberporn problem is a tough law against offenders.
Presently, we await the Department of Justice’s appeal regarding the CDA to the U.S. Supreme Court. But we must also begin to discover ways of encouraging lawmakers to crack down on cyberporn offenders. If access providers fear prosecution then their fear will be a deterrent to the provision of pornographic materials. Parents can take precautions to safeguard their children, but the onus must be on lawmakers to ensure that content providers are fully prosecuted should they violate child pornography laws.