======================================================================
NOTICE:  The following is copyrighted material, reproduced here by the
         kind permission of the of the Lincoln Journal-Star newspaper.
            (c) 1995 Journal-Star Printing Co., Lincoln, Nebraska.
                          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
======================================================================

SUNDAY, APRIL 2, 1995                                         Page 6B


                              EDITORIALS
                              ~~~~~~~~~~
                     Opinions of the Journal-Star


                 Internet:  Decency net full of holes
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     PROVOCATIVE.  Sexy.  Tantalizing.  Sizzling.  A long line of adjectives
spice up the appeal of bulletin board services advertised in the back pages
of a computer magazine.
     Such bold sales pitches are enough to make the blood boil in parents
of children forever curious about the accessing wonders of the computer
keyboard, along with -- gulp -- certain other things.
     And now, riding resolutely through the dust of the Information
Superhighway to put a stop to it all is U.S. Sen. Jim Exon.  Exon and his
faithful companion, Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington, have introduced the
Communications Decency Act of 1995.  They want to protect children from the
pornographic evils of the Internet.
     It is a commendable enough impulse.  But Exon, normally a careful and
cautious doer of legislative deeds, has responded impulsively and chosen
badly this time.  The place to clamp down on the information parents regard
as unsuitable for their children's eyes is on the receiving end -- in the
home -- not on the transmittal end.
     Not surprisingly, shows of support for the Exon-Gorton rescue mission
are hard to find.  Opposition to its attack on free speech and other
implications seem to be popping up all over, including in the offices of
such other Senate Democrats as Patrick Leahy of Vermont.  "None of us want
children to be delving into pornography," Leahy said in the most recent
issue of Newsweek, "but let's not deal with it in a way that cripples one
of the best communication successes in decades."
     Enthusiastic users of the Internet are buzzing around like swarms of
angry hornets -- and rightly so.  Among the sources of incredulity: How do
well-meaning senators mean to apply national law to an international
network?  Who will set the standards for decency and the indecency that
could attract fines as high as $100,000 and prison terms as long as two
years?  Why punish the bearers of computer messages when it is the user
who decides to access information clearly lableled for adults?
     Exon has made an honest effort to meet one of the biggest objections
by adding the word "knowingly" to the section that covers "the transmission
of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication
which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent."
     But he is advocating the impossible in monitoring tasks for reasons
that include that computer messages are indecipherable while in transit.
     For parents who do want to subscribe to adults-only services, it is
already possible to block access to their children through more convenient
means than a padlock or a 24-hour watch on the computer screen.  Subscribers
to America Online and other Internet services can use access coding that
lets them in and keeps mischievous offspring out.
     Software that will better filter the information stream in the home is
being developed.
     The federal government cannot and should not restrict youngsters'
access to adults-only magazines and videos by locking the doors of the
stores where they are sold.  There and on the computer highway, there are
better and fairer ways to proceed.

======================================================================


          Dave Furstenau  df@unlinfo.unl.edu
                          LINCOLN, NEBRASKA