I am really shocked by the Internet community's response to the Communications Decency Act. Shocked and dismayed. Have we really come to a point in this country where people are against decency? Have we really lowered our national moral standards to a point where any person can say anything they want to say?

Have you all lost your minds? All of you ding-a-ling's out there huffing and puffing about censorship, free speech and your precious “rights.” What nonsense.

No one is infringing on your right to free speech. No one is saying that you can't communicate with one another on any topic that congress deems appropriate. The Right Honorable Senator James Exon is simply saying you can't say things that you shouldn't be saying in the first place. That's all. And trust me, no one says what not to say better than James Exon. I could add a link to Mr. Exon's Senate floor speech to show you what I mean, but my better judgment and common decency tell me that I shouldn't. I wouldn't add a link to it even if it weren't prohibited by Federal law.

Congress really had no choice but to firm up their stance on speech. Nothing had been done to constrain free speech since 1934, and it was beginning to show.

A few rules of etiquette will do nothing but improve communications on the Internet. And now, thanks to Mr. Exon, we have the law to impose those good manners by force. Senator Exon surpassed his duty to merely oppress material he and his supporters find “obscene.” In his legislation, he outlawed any and all material which might be deemed too “indecent” for a kindergarten classroom. Some say this is too strict. But isn't this just the sort of guideline we should use for communication in a “broadcast medium” like private Email?

I've heard people criticize the bill as vague, but you tell me, how specific can you be when listing words you can't say or write? How specific does Mr. Exon need to be? We all know what he means. We shouldn't allow the Internet to be used to lure people into a world of free thought and expression with absolutely no rules or regulations. We should use the net to firmly instruct current and future generations on clean living and conformance to a standard way of puritanical life.

Some say the bill will severely limit the productive exchange of information. This new law does nothing to take away from the net's effectiveness. Even “touchy” subjects can be handled without using indecent language. Serious discussions of naughty diseases that only bad people get can be addressed without lowering ourselves to the use of sterile, humiliating, medical terminology. Here is just one example:

If your pee pee burns or stings when you wee wee, you may have a bo bo in your tum tum from doing a no no.

Now what's wrong with that? Isn't that as clear and as decent as anyone would have dared whisper during the Victorian era? And weren't we all better off back then?

Some embarrassing “works” will still have to be allowed though. Thanks to groups of godless heathens, some people will be able to hide behind the exceptions allowed for material that has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Whatever that is. All anyone has to do to take advantage of this huge loophole is to have a Federal judge agree with them.

None of this is necessary. All we have to do is adopt some new terminology. I'm sure some community somewhere will find terms describing certain medical procedures “indecent.” Rather than gamble with the possibility of a prison sentence for using the “a” word, I would suggest that the Christian Coalition change their online literature to say, “We don't think you should let the doctor make your baby go bye-bye” I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure they can put that on their web page without being arrested or fined.

I realize that this new law isn't all positive -- there are some drawbacks, too. Locking people in prison for 2 years for saying one of the "seven dirty words" in an Email message is bound to cost quite a bit of money. But just because it's expensive is no reason to abandon a just and moral law. Would we let people get away with murder just because it's too expensive? No; I don't care how many prisons we have to build. Proper decorum and good taste are worth it. One possible solution would be to use the heinous criminal's own money to fund prisons! Mr. Exon may be way ahead of me on this point -- that may be the reason the bill levies a $250,000 fine for using a word that the state has forbidden.

Through all of this ballyhoo, I haven't heard anyone mention the possible positive benefits from this legislation. I've heard that there are something like 30 million people connected to the net. I've also repeatedly heard that almost all of them are greasy, child molesting perverts. Censoring all those infidel's private correspondence and web pages is going to be one heck of an industry! Is Exon pro-business? You betcha.

I can print one paragraph of the speech Mr. Exon gave:

“In short, Mr. President, what this Senator from Nebraska is attempting to do is to merely copy the legislation that we have had on the books for a long, long time with regard to the spread of pornography and obscenity, especially addressing the many court decisions that have said that the community standard rules, and basically rules in law have been recognized for a long time, that we have the right, and I think the responsibility, to make sure that our children do not have instant access to material on the Internet.”

I think Mr. Exon meant to say “access to indecent material on the Internet.” But, then again, maybe not. Who am I to put words in Senator Exon's mouth?

eMail This Page
FreedomLobby.org
Contents