Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Online act creates sticky situation

Christian Ochoa
Opinion Columnist 

Your mother was probably right: You'll go blind if you continue. Nothing against self-love, but the line between seeking self-love materials, free speech and protecting the kiddies has gotten a little stickier. 

Free speech advocates and Web site publishers began arguments in a federal court Monday that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which was originally passed by Congress to protect children from viewing online pornography, might be used against adults who are seeking information "harmful to children," which could include sexual health information, erotic literature or even news coverage of the naked prisoners from Abu Gharib. 

Sticky situation indeed. 

The act, signed by President Clinton, requires Web sites to demand proof of age from visitors when they're about to view questionable material, which is defined by "contemporary community standards." 

If the Web site doesn't ask for proof of age, operators could face a $50,000 fine and a six-month prison sentence. Plaintiffs argued that operators don't stand a chance, since "community standards" are too vague. 

But there's a bigger problem: The act has yet to be enforced. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld two injunctions that impeded the government from enforcing the law until a trial determines if the law is constitutionally sound. 

It seems the government is choosing its battles wisely lately: defending an act that could be deemed unconstitutional while allowing a coddler of teenagers to be in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

The government should take up, in part, the charge of protecting children from mature content. The problem only arises when the government tries to -- as it infamously does -- implement blanket legislation with vague wording to protect the innocents but condemn the individuals who are stuck in the gray area.

More effective ways of protecting children from questionable content still lie with their parents and their knowledge of what the kids are viewing. 

Not only does that piece of legislation have the potential of criminalizing young adults who are seeking information on sexually transmitted diseases or some other "questionable content," the act seems to take away parental responsibility.

Special acts from the desks of congressmen can only go so far if parents are oblivious of what kids are doing online. Parents should know who is on the other side of the instant message window and if their growing kids are actually are going blind. 

No child or parent wants Big Brother impeding their personal habits. 

Unless they're into that sort of thing. 

Ochoa, a creative writing junior, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu