During the last decade the Internet has grown immensely, and access to the World Wide Web has become available to practically anyone. Schools and libraries across the country have hooked up to the Internet. With this vast wealth of information at the public's fingertips, several people have become concerned that the wrong kind of information is getting to the wrong type of people, specifically children. Still, others claim it is their Constitutional right to "publish" anything they want. This raises the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of press in cyberspace. While everyone's First Amendment right needs to be protected on the Internet, certain measures should be taken to protect children from inappropriate material on the Internet.

The right of freedom of speech and freedom of press in cyberspace should be protected, but along with this right comes the responsibility of taking necessary precautions to keep materials deemed inappropriate from children. Materials such as pornography, hate speech, and certain criminal activity fall into this category. The problem occurs when people claim this material should be censored, or not allowed simply because it is accessible to children. Many Senators and Representatives had tried to pass laws that prohibit the content of the Internet. One such bill was the CDA or "Communications Decency Act." In 1996 the Supreme Court deemed the CDA unconstitutional. This was a major victory for free speech on the Internet. The Supreme Court said it couldn't block people's access to pictures or words on the Internet, anymore than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of someone's hands. (ACLU) The newest legal debate that is taking place is the implementation of filtering software into publicly owned computers at community schools and libraries. Filtering software works by filtering out inappropriate material, and denying access to inappropriate material on the World Wide Web.

Filtering Software works one of two ways. Either the software searches for keywords on the World Wide Web and recognizes inappropriate sights by these keywords, or it reads "labels" on web sites that have been put in place by either the author of the web sight, or other third party companies. These labels tell what material is on the sight and depending on how the filtering software is configured the sight may or may not be blocked. The problem with the first type of filter is the program has no way of telling in what context the word is used. For example, a search might find the word "breast" on a web page, but it cannot determine whether that word was used in a chicken recipe, an erotic story, or in some other manner. (ACLU) The problem of the second type of filter is that many times the label for a web sight doesn't really reflect the content on the sight. This is especially true when third party labelers are the ones judging the content of the web sight. These faults in filter programs are one of the primary reasons people disagree with putting filter programs on computers in schools and libraries.

People are also concerned that free speech is being blocked. They aren't talking about illegal things such as child pornography, but things that have been declared legal to publish. This deeply concerns people that the Internet is being cramped before it really has started. Libraries that use blocking software often apply it too all its patrons including adults. If an adult wants to look up something that may be blacklisted by the filter program on the computer they are using, they may have to ask the librarian to do it for them. This raises serious privacy issues. Perhaps the person was trying to look up something about homosexuality or religion. These are awfully sensitive issues and an individual is entitled to their privacy when trying to find information out about them. An individual may be to shy to ask for the web sight to be unblocked and just forget about it. In this way free speech has been blocked again, indirectly but blocked none the less.

There are better solutions for preserving free speech on the Internet and protecting children. The main way is to teach responsibility to children about the appropriate way to use the Internet at school. Many schools only allow Internet usage for school related work, this is one effective way to make sure a child is using the World Wide Web for the right reasons. Children also need to learn about the dangers of the Internet. The Internet isn't always a friendly place and getting too personal on the Internet can result in dangerous situations. The Internet should be treated as a privilege, not a right. Obviously some materials are not appropriate for children especially in the classroom. The best way to avoid these problems is to teach responsibility, not censorship of potentially enlightening material.

The Internet is really unique in form. It allows people to communicate with one another around the world and share information on a regular basis. When this information starts to become censored just because it is objectionable to some, censorship can start to get out of hand. The problem with censorship is that the question "Where does it stop?" means something different to everyone. The Constitution applies to cyberspace just as is does to the printing press. On the Internet anyone can be heard, and his or her opinions can be known. In that respect free speech should be as strong as ever on the Internet.