Please read the following case study (Cyberporn: The Current Controversy). Upon completion, please
answer the questions following the case study. Make sure your answers are well synthesized and
grammatically correct. Your case study should be at least 2-3pages long. You may not submit Google
Docs.
The Communications Decency Act of 1995 attempted to keep “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or
indecent” material off the Internet (Levy, 1995). Legal challenges arose immediately because the law was
so broad and so vague that uploading some classic literary works would become felonies, as would
distributing certain information about contraception and abortion. The central question was whether
cyberspace should be as controlled as radio and television, or as free as telephones, magazines,
newspapers, and private conversations. Cyberspace experts point out that the Internet is more
comparable to a river of ongoing conversation among 30 million computers and thus should not and
cannot be subject to the same restrictions as other electronic media.
Trading sexually explicit images is one of the largest recreational uses of computer networks. (Yet such
images constitute only 3 percent of all messages on Usenet newsgroups). Because standard pornography
is so easily available elsewhere, “specialty” materials are in greater demand on the Internet. Paraphilic
images, especially those involving pedophilia, sadomasochism, and bestiality, are common. Most of the
images are simply taken from preexisting print sources, but now these are available in one’s own
home. Knowledge of children’s heavy involvement with computers has led some child molesters to use
this means to contact children. But how should children be protected from such material? Is parental
guidance enough? Can software be developed that would allow such material to be screened away from
children?
In June 1996, a federal three-judge panel produced a 175-page memorandum (it appeared online within
minutes) extending free-speech protections to cyberspace. The decision noted that because the Internet
is in its infancy, still evolving, and one of the most democratic of communications channels, it probably
deserved even greater free-speech protection than broadcast and print media (Nadler & Fong,
1996). They came to this conclusion after spending several weeks surfing around the Net alone and under
the guidance of experts. They searched for pornography and tested programs that allow parents to
screen or block certain materials. They concluded that parents, not government, should take
responsibility for limiting their children’s access to materials on the Net. To protect children, the panel
called for voluntary content rating by PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) as well as filtering and
blocking software. SurfWatch and Canada’s Net Nanny are examples of such software. Groups
representing social and religious conservatives vowed to continue their fight for increased restrictions.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act to be unconstitutional and a
serious threat to free speech. Noting the tremendously democratic potential of the Internet as a forum
where every citizen’s voice can be heard, the Court concluded that communications on the Internet
deserve the highest level of protection. After learning how to surf the Internet, the Supreme Court
Justices determined that the Internet is not as invasive as radio or television and that there are other ways
to protect children from the pornography on the Internet. The Court found, in particular, that it is
extremely difficult to “accidentally” encounter pornography on the Internet (Levy, 1997).
Critical Thinking Questions:
How do you feel about cyberporn? What do you think about this study? What do you think about the
Supreme Court ruling? Do you believe cyberporn is harmful to children? Why or why not? Do you
believe Cyberporn is harmful to adults? Why or why not?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment