Stop!
The Government Should Not
Regulate the Information Highway

        Attorney Doug Isenburg, publisher of a website that provides information for Internet professionals, advised a distressed friend to search the Internet for statistics when she had a miscarriage. Because she discovered miscarriages were common occurrences, she was comforted by this information. Unfortunately, advocates of governmental Internet regulation want to ban this and other “inappropriate” information from reaching the eyes of minors. If this happened, Doug Isenburg’s friend might be forced to disclose personal information before gaining access to Internet knowledge, deterring her and others from looking up this information and causing a lot of unnecessary grief (Isenburg 59).

        Anyone with a phone line and a computer can connect to the Internet. Due to its worldwide access, the Web functions as a free information medium with little governmental control. Advocates of government regulation, however, want to put an end to the “anarchic” information highway. If we allow the government to put restrictions on the Internet, what will happen to the World Wide Web? The detour signs enforced by the government will slow down the free exchange of ideas in this new information medium. Would Doug Isenburg’s friend be willing to fill out an age verification form to enter an “adult” content website, or would she chose to remain ignorant and worry needlessly? If the Internet is allowed to stay in its present state, she will not need to make that decision. In order to keep the Internet a free medium it should not be regulated by the government; such action would handicap the purpose of the information highway. The two main areas of controversy in this issue are Internet insecurities and the right of free speech.

        While people are concerned about Internet security on the information highway, the two that are most media publicized are privacy and fraud. The Internet has broken down international and commercial barriers for the common person, but it has also allowed businesses to hoard customers’ private information (Coleman and Graubert). This hoard of knowledge, if leaked, could open children’s private data and anyone’s medical records. Also, it allows identity thieves easy access to numerous victims (Zurier 35). Fraud, as with any information medium, is a problem. The most common fraud technique on the Internet is a Pyramid Scheme, where the promoter provides “easy money” in exchange for investments or recruiting other investors. According to economists, ninety-five percent of these people lose their money (Coleman and Graubert).

        With concerns such as these, it is clear to see why people are pushing for Internet regulation, but media hype overshadows many misconceptions about the Internet. The public needs to step back and look at the Internet as a whole. Once they do this, they should realize that privacy and fraud occurrences are rare. H. Robert Wientzen, CEO and president of the Direct Marketing Association, emphasizes the numerous many daily exchanges that are executed instead of the “what-if” scenarios (Zurier 35). How many successful Ebay transactions have executed smoothly? How many Amazon.com orders have reached their destination with no problems? In the grand scale of e-commerce, fraud and privacy problems do not constitute a majority of transactions.

        Another misconception about the Internet is that in its current state there are absolutely no regulations. This is untrue. The government might not regulate the World Wide Web, but the information highway still falls under the government’s jurisdiction when crimes are committed. For example, Internet pharmacies have become a concern not only to doctors, but to the public as well. Through online stores, people have the potential to purchase drugs without a doctor’s prescription. When these drugs are given to the patients, the company doesn’t inform them of the possible complications. Just because they are performing these acts online does not mean that it is legal. Internet pharmacies are still under the jurisdiction of the United States government even if they are online. For example, Pillbox.com, located in Texas, was selling prescription drugs to residents in Missouri. Because they had not acquired a state license, they were fined $15,000 and had to reimburse customers from Missouri (Oliver 98). In cases similar to this, the government still has the right to prosecute those individuals who commit crimes, no matter how such crimes are committed. If one commits a copyright felony by copying a CD and selling it online, it is the same as copying a tape from Hastings and selling it.

        Moreover, the problems that exist on the World Wide Web can be solved without government intervention. Take privacy and fraud concerns for example. First, it is logical that reputable companies should regulate themselves. Since these companies want their customers to return, they should not anger them by posting the customer’s personal information on a website or hand it out to those who would abuse it (Zurier 35). According to an Economist article, “Many markets have an incentive to regulate themselves, competing to offer consumer protection from unpleasant experiences. Investors prefer to put their money into companies on well-run exchanges” (“Hands off the Internet” 7). While most companies will do the best they can to protect customers, individuals doing business over the Internet and giving money to investors still need to be cautious. The same principles people use when buying something from a store or on the phone should be applied. Does it have a good reputation? Am I purchasing from a credible store like Wal-Mart or some random person I do not know anything about? A customer needs to gather information on the company or person they are purchasing from, just as one would do in everyday life.

        Among the biggest debates raging over Internet regulation resides the First Amendment issue. The First Amendment stated in the Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Constitution 21). Because the First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, the First Amendment poses a problem for regulation in any information medium. How can the government regulate the Internet without infringing on American’s right to free speech? There are many topics dealing with the Internet that have been argued under the First Amendment: hate speech, limiting minor access to information without limiting adults, private versus public access to certain information on the Internet, and how to regulate the Internet.

        Hate speech has been a topic of debate since the 1920s (Becker, Bryan, and Jipson). The right to express one’s opinion is protected by the First Amendment, thus, so is hate speech. Some people have been advocating for a hate speech free Internet, but to accomplish this would take rights away from American society. In a 1997 Chicago Poll, only 1/3 of Americans thought that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment (Becker, Bryan, and Jipson). This means that the majority, two-thirds, believed hate speech should be protected.

        While advocating protection of hate speech might seem like only a degrading and cruel practice at first, there are many reasons why it is allowed. Restricting hate speech means restricting the right to have an opinion, which is what democracy is based upon. Were there not posters mocking British soldiers during the Revolutionary War? Was there an absence of hate posters against Spaniards in the Spanish-American War? The free flow of ideas, both popular and unpopular, created this country and made it what it is today. Banning such exchanges would dissolve the foundation that established this country.

        On top of all this, limiting hate speech is a much harder task than it first appears to be. How would we limit hate speech? Would it encompass all “immoral” hate speech or just certain factions? According to a scholarly Internet law review article:

If all hate speech is restricted, the groups and individual promoting this speech will feel infringed upon. If only certain categories of hate speech are restricted, segments of the population may feel devalued by society if they are the targets of hate speech not restricted. (Becker, Bryan, and Jipson)

        If we decided to ban only a section of hate speech, how would Americans differentiate between acceptable hate speech versus non-acceptable hate speech? If homosexuals were targeted as a lawful form of hate speech but not racial hate speech, would they not feel ostracized from the norm of society? Free speech is a right given to all Americans, not just those whose ideas are most popular or viewed as morally right. This country’s ideals lie in giving rights to those who fall in the minority along with giving power to the majority reign of thought. It can be said that there appears to be more Christians than atheists in America, but that doesn’t give us the right to ban people who don’t believe in God to speak their mind. Just as we allow Christians to create websites, the American way of government must allow atheists to do the same. To limit those people from speaking, whether a person believes in their viewpoint or not, takes away their First Amendment Right. Because we can’t draw that fine line or cut out all hate speech in general, banning hate speech without infringing on the freedom of speech becomes impossible.

        Once again, just because hate speech is allowed on the Internet, crimes through threats are an entirely different manner. While the government doesn’t regulate the content in the Internet, it can still prosecute those individuals or websites that are violating the law. “Speech that expresses a clear intent to commit or threaten harm is not protected speech” (Becker, Bryan, and Jipson). Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater is unacceptable and not protected under free speech, neither is stating an intent to kill someone. An example of prosecuting threatening speech occurred at the University of California. A student sent e-mails to 50 Asian students threatening to kill each of them. The now former student is currently residing in a jail cell (Becker, Bryan, and Jipson).

        Restricting information from minors has fallen under the critical eyes of Internet regulation activists. Pro-regulators want to prevent those under eighteen from viewing “inappropriate” material ranging from satanic culture to drugs (Goldberg 18). The word, inappropriate, can be interpreted many ways. This material could include medical reports, which can be educational. Would Doug Isenburg’s friend, who had a miscarriage, have to login and give a password in order to view medical information? Would she still want to look up this information if she had to input a credit card for validation? Banning all of this “unhealthy” material would infringe upon the rights of adults to view and as well as send the regulated information. For example, imagine that someone gave out a message about Satanists in a chat room. If a minor happened to be in the room, the sender would be punished for sending out such information, thus limiting that person’s right to freedom of speech (Weaver 59). Since everyone shares the privilege of equal rights in America, the government cannot allow a child’s rights to be the only consideration. To do so would be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment and unfair to the adult population.

        Regulating access to certain information in public settings, such as a library, has become the heart of the public versus private domains issue. Public places, according to regulation advocators, should be regulated because of their openness. Although, according to Beverly Goldberg, most lawmakers water down regulations toward public areas (18). Why do they do this? Lawmakers believe that schools and libraries will regulate themselves. Even the companies who create the filter software stand against government intervention. Susan Getgood, the Vice President of the company that makes CyperPatrol, states:

Most schools and many libraries have already installed filters to help implement their policies for the acceptable use of computers. Decisions about whether to install filtering software technology should be made locally, not handed down from state or federal governments. We just don’t think the government needs to get involved mandating any technology, even our own.” (qtd. in Goldberg 18)

        Schools and libraries have already begun implementing their own filtering programs. It would seem foolish for the government to make a law to instigate activity that is already occurring.

        The last issue in the regulation controversy is how are we going to regulate the Internet. Does the Internet consist of the only the United States or a plethora of allied countries? Business Week brought up a good point in its article, “The Net: How to Head Off Big Time Regulation.” “Imagine how much harder life would be at Amazon.com if the company were forced to comply with everything from Kuwaiti decency standards to European privacy laws to Iowa sales tax” (89). How many times a day would Amazon.com need conferences with lawyers and accountants to make sure the company was complying with regulations from all sides and countries?

        Already, problems concerning regulation that bypass country boundaries have surfaced. In France, it is against the law to purchase Nazi paraphernalia because it destabilizes France’s national sovereignty. The United States, with its emphasis on individual rights, tolerates the sale of such items. But someone in France bid on a Nazi paraphernalia on Yahoo! Auctions in America. After a large uproar, the cautious Yahoo! banned all Nazi items from being sold on their auction site (Dettmer 13). How can one country regulate the Internet without infringing on another country’s sovereignty? Obviously, the United States doesn’t appreciate France telling one of our companies what it can or cannot post on its site. Because no one really knows what to do about this dilemma, the Internet remains as it is today, a relatively free information medium.

        The biggest victory for advocators of non-governmental regulation is the Supreme Court’s ruling that a portion of The Communication Decency Act of 1996 as unconstitutional. This act, if established wholly, would have prevented minors from viewing “inappropriate material.” According to the Supreme Court, this law was ruled unconstitutional for two reasons. The first reason was is vagueness of the term “inappropriate” (Cheeseman 521-2). Since the law would have allowed a minor’s right to overshadow an adult’s, the act was deemed unconstitutional. The second was the penalty for the crime allowing a person under eighteen from viewing this material. The offender could face a fine and jail time (Cheeseman 521-2). Not only would rights of the adult sending the “questionable” information be infringed upon, but he or she would also be fined for speaking his mind in a chat room or on the Web. So, “the [Supreme] Court concluded, as, a matter of constitutional tradition, … we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it” (Weaver 31).

        The World Wide Web is not problem free, no information medium is. But if we allow the government to regulate the information highway, American society will face new difficulties. Most companies that want customers to return will keep their private information confidential. Most of the content problems can be solved on a self-regulation basis, such as the libraries and schools that use protecting software from Susan Getgood’s company. While these filter are not perfect they are “sharper than the blunt instruments government censors wield” (Economist 7). The First Amendment protects the rights of all people in America, not just those that follow the more popular opinions of society. We cannot allow popular opinions to eliminate the existence of unpopular ones. Thus, the present system of self-regulation and little to no government interference, unless crimes are committed, is the best solution. The Internet is an information highway, and that ride should not be plagued with roadblocks and dead ends placed by governmental regulators.

Works Cited

Becker, Paul, Bryan Byers and Arthur Jipson. “The Contentious American Debate: The First
         Amendment and Internet-Base Hate Speech.” International Review of Law, Computers
         & Technology 14.1 (2000): 133-142.

Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law: Ethical, International & E-commerce Environment. 4th Ed.
        Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001.

Coleman, Jill and John Graubert. “Consumer protection and antitrust enforcement at the speed
         of light: the FCC meets the internet.” Canada – United States Law Journal 25 (1999):  275-294.

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence. 3rd Ed. Washington
         D.C.:  Commission of the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1987.

Dettmer, Jamie. “Regulators Ready to Put Chains on Cyberspace.” Insight on News 17.34 (2001): 13.

Goldberg, Beverly. “Internet-Regulation Bills Abound, Rebound for Libraries.” American Libraries
        32.7 (2001): 18.

“Hands off the Internet.” The Economist 343.8024 (1997): 7.

Isenburg, Doug. “The Censor That Couldn’t.” Internet World 6.16 (2000): 59.

“The Net: How to Head Off Big-Time Regulation.” Business Week 1999 May 10: 89.

Oliver, Amy. “Internet pharmacies: regulation of a growing industry.” Journal of Law,  Medicine &
        Ethics 28.1 (2000): 98.

Weaver, Russel L. “Free Speech, Crime, and the Challenge of Advancing Technology.”  International
       Review of Law, Computers & Technology 6.16 (2000): 59.

Zurier, Steve. “Privacy Sound Off: Regulation Vs. Self-Regulation.” Internet Week 733 (1998): 35.