The Court's decision, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, asserted that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to that accorded books and newspapers (as opposed to the lesser protection granted TV and radio). "Content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought," Justice Stevens said.

But full protection for diverse expression on the Internet is far from assured. The Court's verdict was widely anticipated, and CDA proponents are already far along in alternative censorship plans. Many of these plans center around the idea of "voluntary" screening of Internet content, especially on the Web. This would be accomplished through a combination of officially sanctioned ratings, Web content providers (who would perforce "rate" their sites), content-blocking software, and artificially agitated parents. President Clinton is meeting with parent and teacher organizations, librarians and computer industry officials on Tuesday to discuss a "V-chip"-type solution.

Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the two dissenting Justices, envisions using future technology to create "adult zones" on the Net, digital red-light districts which would be walled off from inquisitive children.

Some ratings-system advocates go considerably farther. Senator Patty Murray, D-WA, is proposing a "Child-Safe Internet Act" that would:

• Require all sites to be rated.
• Make "mis-rating" a criminal offense.
• Require parental warnings on home pages.
• Help parents access and use site-blocking software.

"No one wants to return home after work to find a child downloading pornographic material," she notes.

There are problems with this ratings-driven approach, and they are severe. In the first place, the software is notoriously inexact, and likely to remain so—very many babies are going to be thrown out with the bath water. What's more, ratings, by their very nature, directly contradict the idea that the Internet deserves "the highest level of First Amendment protection"—do you see ratings or parental advisories on the shelves of your local library? And if you did, wouldn't they likely have a chilling effect on publishers, readers and (especially) writers?

Books do not seek you out; you must choose to read them. The same is true of Web sites; the Internet is not a broadcast medium (not yet, at any rate). Mandatory content ratings would be antithetical to freedom and diversity of expression, and we believe they are completely unwarranted.

Laudable as the Supreme Court's decision was in its own right, it seems to be fueling the drive to regulate content—a drive we believe to be politically motivated, from the President on down. To impose potentially crippling restrictions on an essential communications medium in the name of "protecting children" is both specious and shortsighted. There is no software that can relieve parents of their responsibility to provide intelligent guidance for their children. There never will be.

(Reviewed June 29, 1997)