Internet Pornography: Freedom of Press or Dangerous Influence?
Internet Pornography: Freedom of Press or Dangerous Influence?
The topic of pornography is controversial many times because of the various definitions which each have different contexts. Is it nudity, sexual intercourse, art, or all of these? Is it magazines, videos, or pictures? For the purposes of this paper, pornography will be defined as any material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement. With all of the arguments presented in this paper, it seems only a vague definition of this type can be applicable to all views on the subject. Pornography on the Internet has brought about difficulties pertaining to censorship. All of the arguments in this paper can be divided into one of two categories: those whose aim is to allow for an uncensored Internet, and those who wish to completely eliminate pornography from the Internet all together. All arguments for an uncensored Internet all cite the basic rights of free speech and press. While arguments in this paper are international, almost everyone of them cites the First Amendment of the United States. In many of the papers it is implied that the United States sets precedent for the rest of the world as far as laws governing the global world of the Internet. Paul F. Burton, an Information Science professor and researcher, gives many statistics showing that presence of pornography on the Internet is not necessarily a bad thing. He gives one example that shows that "47% of the 11,000" most popular searches on the Internet are targeted to pornography. This fact shows that pornography has given the Internet approximately half of its clientele (2). Without this, the
Internet would hardly be the global market that it is today. Most on the
Internet are not merely the for pornography either. It is just a part-time activity while not attending to serious matters. At another point in his paper, Burton cites reasons why the Internet is treated differently than other forms of media.
The topic of pornography is controversial many times because of the various definitions which each have different contexts. Is it nudity, sexual intercourse, art, or all of these? Is it magazines, videos, or pictures? For the purposes of this paper, pornography will be defined as any material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement. With all of the arguments presented in this paper, it seems only a vague definition of this type can be applicable to all views on the subject. Pornography on the Internet has brought about difficulties pertaining to censorship. All of the arguments in this paper can be divided into one of two categories: those whose aim is to allow for an uncensored Internet, and those who wish to completely eliminate pornography from the Internet all together. All arguments for an uncensored Internet all cite the basic rights of free speech and press. While arguments in this paper are international, almost everyone of them cites the First Amendment of the United States. In many of the papers it is implied that the United States sets precedent for the rest of the world as far as laws governing the global world of the Internet. Paul F. Burton, an Information Science professor and researcher, gives many statistics showing that presence of pornography on the Internet is not necessarily a bad thing. He gives one example that shows that "47% of the 11,000" most popular searches on the Internet are targeted to pornography. This fact shows that pornography has given the Internet approximately half of its clientele (2). Without this, the
Internet would hardly be the global market that it is today. Most on the
Internet are not merely the for pornography either. It is just a part-time activity while not attending to serious matters. At another point in his paper, Burton cites reasons why the Internet is treated differently than other forms of media.
Cited: World Wide Web.http://www.dis.strath.as.uk/people/paul/CIL96.html. 21 Feb. 1997. "Computer Pornography Questions and Answers." (8 Nov. 1996). Online. World Wide Web.http://www.pff.org:80/townhall/FRC/infocus/if95k4pn.html Lewis, Peter H. "Judge Turn Back Law Intended to Regulate Internet Decency." (13 June 1996) 1997. ---. "Federal Judge Block Enforcement of CDA.." (16 Feb 1996). Online. World Wide Web.http://www.pcweek.com:80/news/0310/14ecda.html. 23 Feb. 1997.