The idea of censorship is nothing new to the American people. Censorship has been controversial since I can ever remember. The issue is so delicate because censorship by definition infringes on peoples First Amendment rights. Usually when that phrase is used, controversy follows quite closely. Pornography is another hotly debated issue. Parents have long wanted stricter laws to help prohibit young children getting a hold of magazines, videos and other pornographic materials. With the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web it has become even more of a challenge to prevent children from being exposed to such material. These are some questions that people need to ask them selves and legislators. Should magazine companies, such as Playboy, Penthouse, etc, be prohibited from publishing their magazines on the web when magazines like Time, and Sports Illustrated are allowed? How easy is it to access such magazines? Do people want to have such magazine so accessible to just anyone? What can and is being done and what are the political ramifications? 

Anyone with access to a computer that is equipped with on-line services can view such magazines with relative ease. Although, studies show Internet pornography only represents a small portion of Internet traffic it still is quite effortless. Basically the only thing one needs to do is select any of the search engines and simply type: sex. This will pull up a host of different sites where one can easily click on any of them and view pornography. What many groups are trying to do is make it less accessible to people and especially young people. What is happening is that the term pornography is which a broad word used in many different contexts and is difficult to determine what should be censored. Pornography is defined in Webster's dictionary as pictures, film, or writing which deliberately arouse sexual excitement. Well one thing might sexually excite one person but not another person. So by this definition one can understand why there is a lot of room for discrepancy. Until there is a universal definition of what is meant by pornography there will continue to heavy to debate. 

This is strong demand for such magazines as Playboy and Penthouse on the Internet, this is evident in the sales of each of the magazines in the news sales. But the accessibility of the magazine though the Internet is the real question. Do people want pornographic magazines readily available to young children, since computerized technology is now so encouraged to young children. Well censorship on the Internet would call for on-line service provides to patrol the content of online discussions: news groups, chat rooms, bulletin boards, Web pages, etc. Most American do not want to see this happen. What most people want is, as Susan Wendell explains, "society has the right to protect itself from the disorder and moral disintegration that result from individuals unduly pursuing their sexual self-interest... the government has the right, therefore, to limit such forms of expression." What she is essentially saying is that if person are going to have no couth and continue to be indecent then the government will be forced to step in. Is this wrong to want something like this. Does this "infringe upon our First Amendment Rights" or is this doing what is "necessary and proper." This is where the real dispute lies. The on-line companies need to find a happy median to statify everyone (which is extremely difficult at this day in age). We want to protect the children. "Children are very impressionable and do not realize the implications behind the pornographic materials: without censors onthe material, they will be able to feely access information that will corrupt their morals"(Caleshu 4). 

There are a number of perposal in Congress that would give some form of censorship or totally make the Internet free and open to all. Bills such as Sentor James Exon's Communications Decency Act which would punish any person who makes available any indecent communications in any form. Another similiar bill is the Communications Act of 1995, introduced by Representative Cox of California and Representative Wyden of Oregon. This bill would prohibit Fcc regulations of speech on the Internet. There are many others that please many and outrage many others. If the government is not working fast enough for you, there are, however, alternatives. Personal censors are now available for parents to prevent young one from view pornographic materials. The company Microsystem Software has created Cyber Patrol. What Cyber Patrol and many other sofware filtering systems do is allow parents to restrict what Internet site children can access. This will help control what children are viewing at home, but does not do anything for public access. 

In conclusion, the topic of pornographic censorship will continue to be heavily debated as long as people have such strong views. Censorship will forever be in debate since it deals with hte First Amendment rights so closely. If the issue is important to you as an individual, then take action, get involved and make a difference.