TalkBack Central: Online red-light district -- mixed signals

There are some major flaws in this proposed "red-light district." Sure, the plan seems simple in theory, but when you look into the technical and legal aspects of it, it becomes much more complicated.

First of all, even if the law were passed in the US, nothing would force sites hosted in foreign countries to comply with these standards. The Internet is a global virtual network, and all current laws are localized to some degree (national, state, or local level) and it is still undecided how these laws will apply to the net.

Secondly, setting aside blocks of IP addresses for eventual mapping to ".kids" or ".xxx" addresses means that you are setting a limited number of addresses that will eventually be surpassed. The current IP structure will soon be replaced by IP-6, a new IP standard using longer, hexadecimal addresses. The fact that the original system is being outgrown shows that any system put in place is prone to be eventually surpassed.

Third, censorship in itself is against the Constitution. We are guaranteed "freedom of speech", and the government does not reserve the right to restrict communication of any type. The US tried to restrict Internet freedom in 1996 with the passing of the Communications Decency Act, but the Supreme Court rejected it in the case of Reno vs. ACLU.

This idea is typical of the current trend in our society that the government needs to protect us from everything. Parents feel the government is responsible for protecting their kids instead of the parents themselves. Whenever government sticks its hands in anything, it will become tainted.

The Net is the closest thing to totally unrestricted flow of ideas this world has ever seen. Much of its popularity is attributed to the fact that no one interest, government, or corporation controls it.

What is my plan, then? Sites containing "adult" material should self-regulate themselves, as almost all professional sites do already. As for kids surfing the Net, parents should take the same responsibility in monitoring their Internet use as they should in monitoring what programs they watch on TV.

If you don't trust your children, do not let them surf the Web unless you are there to keep an eye on them. Periodically check your browser history, which lists sites that have been viewed on your computer. There are also programs out there such as NetNanny that will not let questionable sites be viewed. You can also consider getting filtered Internet service, which only lets certain sites deemed decent into your computer.

Freedom of speech is not to be sacrificed for the sake of protecting children. Certainly children should be protected from questionable content, But don't expect the government to do your parenting for you. Take control yourself, and let others be.

Tony Federer is a 19-year old senior-level software developer at Wisconsin Information Technology in Green Bay, Wisconsin, working towards a MCSD certification. Tony is self-taught in Visual Basic, HTML/DHTML, JavaScript, ASP, SQL and some C++. Tony is also an adamant supporter of web freedom and does not wish to see it controlled by any one government, corporation, or interest.