Concern over the readily available material on the Internet that could be harmful to our children and adolescents has resulted in attempts to legislate restrictions on those posting material on the web for the protection of children who, it is feared, may stumble upon material that may be harmful to them.

         The Children’s Internet Protection Act, CIPA, was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1999, cleared both houses and was passed on Dec. 15, 2000. It required schools receiving Federal discounts for purchase of computers  to use a “Technology protection measure” on every computer connected to the Internet that protects against obscene material, child pornography, or other material deemed potentially harmful to children.

         Previous attempts to restrict indecent content had met with successful Supreme Court challenges on First Amendment grounds. CIPA was also challenged on the grounds that it required libraries to block constitutionally protected material, but it was upheld as constitutional as long as libraries unblocked and made available said material to adults requesting it.

          The entire process of trying to protect children or minors from potentially harmful material on the Internet has, moreover, provoked a huge debate over 1st Amendment rights as stated in the Constitution, and the right of freedom of speech on the Internet. It has been charged, for example, that Internet blocking programs often block more than just “porn” or “smut“, but also suppress material such as feminist discussion, gay youth support newsgroups and animal rights organizations.

         Recently, A Philadelphia judge threw out a 1998 law that made it a crime for commercial website operators to make “harmful material” accessible to children on the grounds that it unnecessarily limited internet freedom of speech. The law was challenged by sexual health sites, as one example, and other sites containing explicit material for legitimate purposes; the fear was that the law could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech .  The judge felt that parents could protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit internet free speech.

           Attempts to censor obscene, violent or misogynous lyrics in music have met with similar arguments for protection of free speech, the argument being that actions taken to restrict music may have the effect of preventing artists who may have valuable or genuine things to say through their art form from being heard at all. The censorship of a song however, has often had the opposite effect. If reported by the mass media, it often results in drawing more attention to the song.

           Many have felt and undoubtedly still feel that the right to protect our kids on the Internet should have a higher priority than such concerns. Recent developments, however,  tend to underscore the fact that the issue of protecting Internet free speech is indeed a valid concern.

           Net censorship has begun to spread worldwide and is even being used by dictators to stifle reform and debate. The net was at one time the only uncensored outlet, but dictatorial governments have now come to realize that the net is a means by which dissidents communicate, and have adopted various offensive measures to limit internet communications, such as limiting acess to the internet for dissidents, or evesdropping on e-mail or internet communications. China, considered by many to be one of the worst offenders, has officially denied any censorship at all.

         As a result of internet censorship by dictators and oppressive governments, the United Nations supported the founding of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which had its first meeting in Athens in 2006, and met for the second time in Brazil in 2007.

        Whether or not one agrees that the cause of internet freedom of speech justifies blocking attempts at child internet protection, the hard reality resulting from the debate is that the responsibility falls much more heavily on parents to shield their children from potentially harmful material. As a result, much material has been written on what sorts of measures conscientious parents can take to protect their kids on the internet.

        Some internet safety measures that have been suggested to protect your children from harmful material while allowing them to enjoy the Internet as a learning tool include: 1.)  Install a filtering or blocking program on your computer, or become computer literate and learn how to block objectionable material; 2.) Warn your children of the dangers; 3.) Keep the computer screen in plain view; 4.) Don’t allow personal information to be given out, etc.

        Commercial internet filtering software is available which block objectionable material and log your children’s activities, but it has been argued that if children are educated to their family’s values with regard to sexuality and violence in the media, such home surveillance, objectionable to some, might not be necessary. Firewall products can determine the hours which surfing the internet is possible, so that children can be prevented from surfing at times when no supervision is available.

          Predators on the Internet often use spam or pop-ups to entice prospective victims, plus much spam is x-rated, so blocking spam or pop-ups is adviseable. Chat rooms are also used by predators on the internet, so supervision of children in the use of chat rooms may also be necessary or adviseable.

         The difficulty in controlling what minors are exposed to in the lyrics of music presents perhaps an even more challenging problem, especially on the internet. There have been guidelines proposed for music safety on the internet as well. Making relatively harmless material readily available through bookmarking is one possible approach, plus talking to one’s children about downloading music.

        There is also arguably a need for an alternative music that is clean and unoffensive, but at the same time creative and original enough to have appeal to the younger generation as well as adults.

        In short, the debate over 1st Amendment Rights as stated in the Constitution and the right of internet free speech has effectively blocked many attempts to prevent harmful material from becoming accessible to our children on the internet. Consequently, the responsibility has fallen much more heavily on parents to supervise the use of the Internet by their children. Many internet safety measures have been suggested for this purpose.