Our very best writers will produce any essay or term paper you are looking for! We offer reasonable prices and deliver top quality papers on virtually any topic. Our service is available 24/7. Be sure that we are reliable and consistent.
Incarceration of a People
The disproportionate numbers of African Americans in the prison system is a very serious issue, which is not usually discussed in its totality. However, it is quite important to address the matter because it ultimately will have an effect on African Americans as a whole.
Of the many tribulations that plague Americans today, the increase in the amount of African American men and women in prisons is unbelievable. It would be naïve to say that the increase is due to the fact that more African Americans are committing crimes now than before. When in actuality it has very prevalent connections to a systematic plan to incarcerate a race of people by creating harsh drug laws to imprison mostly African American, non-violent drug offenders. Since these drug laws were enforced strictly, African Americans have filled our prison systems in outstanding numbers. Consequently causing an overcrowded prison. Private companies, which contain private contracts with the prison, use the inmates as a source of free or cheap labor. One may ask themselves, “Is this ethical?” Absolutely not. They allow the public to believe that it is beneficial because has no expense to tax payers, however the only real benefit is to the company itself. The company has managed to attain free or cheap labor while simultaneously increasing their net profits.
When the values of a people and the ethics of a country are systematically broken down, one begins to ponder about why the preposterous numbers are what they are. African Americans constitute about half of the prison inmates when they only make up about 13% of the United States population. There are many speculations as to why this is so. Some blame poverty or lack of opportunity. Others say police concentrate on poor urban areas “because street crimes such as drug dealing are more visible and residents there require more police protection.”
In 1950 whites made up 65% of all state and federal inmates, while blacks made up only 35%. Today, the opposite is true with 35% of the prison population made up of whites. Specialists have speculated that by the end of the year 2000, roughly one million African American adults will be behind bars. That will constitute for almost one in every 14 black men being in jail. And as of December 31, 1999 there were 1,366,721 African American men and women under federal and state jurisdiction. This implies that there has been a 3.4% increase since December 1,1998. “The face of crime to white America is now that of a black man” says David Bositis, Center for Political and Economic Studies, senior political analyst. While incarceration statistics have skyrocketed, crime rates have increased much more slowly. Politicians sought out political points by enforcing tough on crime laws. By doing this the politicians increase public panic by portraying the “urban underclass” as young black males.
The Prison Industrial Complex
The Prison Industrial Complex can be described as a contract or lease from a private corporation that allows them to contract convict labor. The government argues that they are merely converting public tax money when in reality it has only provided profit for private corporations. It serves two purposes. The first is to neutralize a portion of the population and the other is to continue exploiting areas where mainly African American prisoners are prevalent. Since private contracts have come into play, there has been an increase in the number of prisoners and an increase in imprisonment costs.
The prison industrial complex is not only made up of a set of interest groups, it is also a very manipulative way of thinking. The money hungry corporations are corrupting Americans criminal justice system leading the public to believe that the prisoners are providing a service. When in fact they are increasing their own profits.
A prime example of the prison industrial complex can be observed in major cities such as California Texas, Tennessee and New York where private prison countries have thrived and trends have reached extremes. The United States of America is making money in our prison systems off the back of African Americans. Economically, prison stocks are doing pretty well on the stock market. This very well could be a reason why politicians are pushing for the privatization of the prison systems. A newspaper article dated December 28, 1861 presented the similarities between the government then and now. The article basically describes that African Americans were being incarcerated in record numbers similar to that which is happening presently. It also states that free slaves living in the capital were often jailed under the suspect of having been run away slaves. They were kept in prison for a term of one year, where upon release they were required to pay a fee or be sold back into slavery. Finally, congress was forced to intervene because innocent African Americans were being incarcerated and resold into slavery in record numbers. Quote from that member in congress, “ We last week alluded to the revelation which have been made in Washington, of the confinement of the Negroes in that city, for no other cause than their color. Under laws derogatory of the spirit of the age, in violation of the percepts of Christianity and preeminently disgraceful to the fame of the nations capitol”. The matter was brought before congress and a general McClellan was to arrest all persons who may attempt to imprison blacks on the grounds of there being fugitives.
The prison industrial complex also had a political connection as far back as the early 1970’s. In January 1973, then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller gave an address demanding that every illegal drug dealer be punished with a mandatory prison sentence of life without parole. Rockefeller demonstrated his “commitment” to the state of New York by proposing the harshest drug laws in the United States. Governor Rockefeller argued not only that drug dealers be imprisoned for life but also that plea-bargaining should be forbidden in such cases and that even juvenile offenders should receive life sentences. Rockefeller drug laws, which were enacted a few months later, were quite severe. The penalty for possessing four ounces of an illegal drug or for selling two ounces was a mandatory sentence of 15 years to life. These new for=und laws also included a provision that established a mandatory prison system for many second felony convictions, regardless of the crime or its circumstances. Meanwhile, Rockefeller proudly states he enacted the “toughest drug crime laws in the country”. It was not until the Anti-drug abuse act was incorporated in 1986 won the campaign to revive federal mandatory minimums. Nelson Rockefeller set in New York a shift in national sentencing policies, but since he became b=Vice President a year in a half later he did not have to deal with its consequences.
In 1984, Mario Cuomo was elected governor of New York state government was in bad condition. The inmate population had more than doubled since the passage of the Rockefeller drug laws and the prison systems in the United States were dangerously overcrowded. Although Cuomo was a liberal who opposed mandatory minimum drug sentences President Ronald Reagan had just launched the war on drugs; it was not the best time to go against mainstream America. Cuomo, unable to repeal the Rockefeller drug laws left no choice but to build more prisons. Building these prisons however would require money. In 1981, New York voters defeated a $500 million bond issue for a new prison construction. The only alternate source of financing this construction would be to use the states Urban Development Corporation funds to build the prisons. This corporation was a public agency created in 1968 to build housing for the poor. Using this corporation was a means of financing prison construction for one simple reason, it had the opportunity to issue state bonds without gaining approval from voters.
Surprisingly, private prisons are nothing new in US history. In the mid 1800’s state legislatures awarded contracts to private entrepreneurs to operate and mange Louisianans state prisons. Initially, these prisons were supposed to turn a profit for the state or at least pay for themselves. The private corporations promised to control the delinquents at no cost to the state. As the system spread, labor and businesses complained that using unpaid convict labor constituted “unfair ethical treatment”. While state officials remained indifferent or were bought off by prison interests, prisoners suffered malnourishment, frequent whippings, overwork and over crowdedness.
Prison management companies and United States corporations are increasing the number they use as a ready low cost. Prison and prisoners have become big businesses which are keeping profits from convict labor. Unicore and Wackenhut are examples of corporations that have privately owned and contracted prisons. Patrick Cannan, director of corporate relations for Wackenhut argues on their behalf, “our only incentive is to show a progressive rehabilitation model…we want to rehabilitate them.” We should not forget to recognize that these companies gross approximately $12.78 million every year. And, without this cheap labor their company would not be as prosperous as it is. This is where the political electives in this country begin to enforce harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenders in order to ensure full prison and continue this trend of free labor. The majority of the African American population in the prison system consists of non-violent drug offenders. Thus, a highly overcrowded, largely African American, non-violent offence, prisoners that fill our prisons providing cheap labor for large corporations with private contracts. Businesses whose profit opportunities depend not only on efficient management, but also upon the number of prisoners in their cells benefit profoundly from this source of cheap and sometimes free labor.
Another critical aspect of how the prison industrial complex keeps the labor is apparent in the over crowding of American prisons. Correctional officials may see danger in prisons overcrowding, but large corporations see it as opportunity. The nearly $2 million Americans behind bars mostly non-violent drug offenders means jobs for prisoners and a bonus for corporations.
While incarceration statistics have skyrocketed, crime rates have increased much more slowly. Among those arrested for violent crimes, the proportion who are African American men have changed very little over the past twenty years. Among those arrested for drug crimes, the proportion that are African American have tripled. Although drug abuse among white males are approximately the same, black men are five times more likely to be arrested for a drug offense. As a result of this, African Americans constitute about half of the inmates here in the United States. One out of every 14 black men is likely to be imprisoned at some point during his lifetime.
Another astonishing fact that this brings to the surface is that a large percentage of African American men will permanently lose their right to vote if current trends continue. In nine states, one in every four black men can never vote again because they were convicted of a felony. In states such as Washington, felons automatically lose the right to vote but may petition for the reinstatement of that right. This loss of voting rights shows the decreasing political power of blacks in America.
African Americans must take action before it s too late. We must not watch helplessly as those in power create and enforce unnecessarily harsh drug laws to breakdown our race. In fact it is the same people in power who import drugs into our country and our neighborhoods and distribute them in our communities. So, I urge African Americans people to realize that the prison industrial complex is a modern day form of slavery that not only destroys individuals, it destroys families and communities as well. If we do not defeat it, it will defeat us.
Bibliography
**Parenti, Christian, Lockdown America (London; New York: Verso, 1999) 17-19
**Lynch, Michael J. and Patterson, Britt, Race and Criminal Justice (New York: Harrow and Heinstien, 1991)
*Ranese, Celia “Todays Prison system vs. Yesterdays Slave System” USA TALK 13 March 1999
*Palmer, Louise “Numbers of Blacks in Prison nears 1 million” The Boston Globe Seattle Post Intelligencer
*United States Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics: Prison Inmate Statistics, Washington 1998
*Polowsky, Robert, “Liberal Legacy” Prison Activist Resource Center (weekly). 25 September 1998
*Smith, Phil, “Private Prisons Benefit” The Berne Collection. 1 December 1998
*Shakur, Assata, “Letter from Assata Shakur on the prison industrial complex” 25 October 1999
*Schlosser, Eric, “The Prison Industrial Complex” The Atlantic Monthly. December 1998 Vol. 282 No.6
*- Magazine or newspaper article
** - Book resource
Incarceration of a People
Ayesha Young
US Africa World
November 20, 2000
Incarceration of a People
The disproportionate numbers of African Americans in the prison system is a very serious issue, which is not usually discussed in its totality. However, it is quite important to address the matter because it ultimately will have an effect on African Americans as a whole.
Of the many tribulations that plague Americans today, the increase in the amount of African American men and women in prisons is unbelievable. It would be naïve to say that the increase is due to the fact that more African Americans are committing crimes now than before. When in actuality it has very prevalent connections to a systematic plan to incarcerate a race of people by creating harsh drug laws to imprison mostly African American, non-violent drug offenders. Since these drug laws were enforced strictly, African Americans have filled our prison systems in outstanding numbers. Consequently causing an overcrowded prison. Private companies, which contain private contracts with the prison, use the inmates as a source of free or cheap labor. One may ask themselves, “Is this ethical?” Absolutely not. They allow the public to believe that it is beneficial because has no expense to tax payers, however the only real benefit is to the company itself. The company has managed to attain free or cheap labor while simultaneously increasing their net profits.
When the values of a people and the ethics of a country are systematically broken down, one begins to ponder about why the preposterous numbers are what they are. African Americans constitute about half of the prison inmates when they only make up about 13% of the United States population. There are many speculations as to why this is so. Some blame poverty or lack of opportunity. Others say police concentrate on poor urban areas “because street crimes such as drug dealing are more visible and residents there require more police protection.”
In 1950 whites made up 65% of all state and federal inmates, while blacks made up only 35%. Today, the opposite is true with 35% of the prison population made up of whites. Specialists have speculated that by the end of the year 2000, roughly one million African American adults will be behind bars. That will constitute for almost one in every 14 black men being in jail. And as of December 31, 1999 there were 1,366,721 African American men and women under federal and state jurisdiction. This implies that there has been a 3.4% increase since December 1,1998. “The face of crime to white America is now that of a black man” says David Bositis, Center for Political and Economic Studies, senior political analyst. While incarceration statistics have skyrocketed, crime rates have increased much more slowly. Politicians sought out political points by enforcing tough on crime laws. By doing this the politicians increase public panic by portraying the “urban underclass” as young black males.
The Prison Industrial Complex
The Prison Industrial Complex can be described as a contract or lease from a private corporation that allows them to contract convict labor. The government argues that they are merely converting public tax money when in reality it has only provided profit for private corporations. It serves two purposes. The first is to neutralize a portion of the population and the other is to continue exploiting areas where mainly African American prisoners are prevalent. Since private contracts have come into play, there has been an increase in the number of prisoners and an increase in imprisonment costs.
The prison industrial complex is not only made up of a set of interest groups, it is also a very manipulative way of thinking. The money hungry corporations are corrupting Americans criminal justice system leading the public to believe that the prisoners are providing a service. When in fact they are increasing their own profits.
A prime example of the prison industrial complex can be observed in major cities such as California Texas, Tennessee and New York where private prison countries have thrived and trends have reached extremes. The United States of America is making money in our prison systems off the back of African Americans. Economically, prison stocks are doing pretty well on the stock market. This very well could be a reason why politicians are pushing for the privatization of the prison systems. A newspaper article dated December 28, 1861 presented the similarities between the government then and now. The article basically describes that African Americans were being incarcerated in record numbers similar to that which is happening presently. It also states that free slaves living in the capital were often jailed under the suspect of having been run away slaves. They were kept in prison for a term of one year, where upon release they were required to pay a fee or be sold back into slavery. Finally, congress was forced to intervene because innocent African Americans were being incarcerated and resold into slavery in record numbers. Quote from that member in congress, “ We last week alluded to the revelation which have been made in Washington, of the confinement of the Negroes in that city, for no other cause than their color. Under laws derogatory of the spirit of the age, in violation of the percepts of Christianity and preeminently disgraceful to the fame of the nations capitol”. The matter was brought before congress and a general McClellan was to arrest all persons who may attempt to imprison blacks on the grounds of there being fugitives.
The prison industrial complex also had a political connection as far back as the early 1970’s. In January 1973, then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller gave an address demanding that every illegal drug dealer be punished with a mandatory prison sentence of life without parole. Rockefeller demonstrated his “commitment” to the state of New York by proposing the harshest drug laws in the United States. Governor Rockefeller argued not only that drug dealers be imprisoned for life but also that plea-bargaining should be forbidden in such cases and that even juvenile offenders should receive life sentences. Rockefeller drug laws, which were enacted a few months later, were quite severe. The penalty for possessing four ounces of an illegal drug or for selling two ounces was a mandatory sentence of 15 years to life. These new for=und laws also included a provision that established a mandatory prison system for many second felony convictions, regardless of the crime or its circumstances. Meanwhile, Rockefeller proudly states he enacted the “toughest drug crime laws in the country”. It was not until the Anti-drug abuse act was incorporated in 1986 won the campaign to revive federal mandatory minimums. Nelson Rockefeller set in New York a shift in national sentencing policies, but since he became b=Vice President a year in a half later he did not have to deal with its consequences.
In 1984, Mario Cuomo was elected governor of New York state government was in bad condition. The inmate population had more than doubled since the passage of the Rockefeller drug laws and the prison systems in the United States were dangerously overcrowded. Although Cuomo was a liberal who opposed mandatory minimum drug sentences President Ronald Reagan had just launched the war on drugs; it was not the best time to go against mainstream America. Cuomo, unable to repeal the Rockefeller drug laws left no choice but to build more prisons. Building these prisons however would require money. In 1981, New York voters defeated a $500 million bond issue for a new prison construction. The only alternate source of financing this construction would be to use the states Urban Development Corporation funds to build the prisons. This corporation was a public agency created in 1968 to build housing for the poor. Using this corporation was a means of financing prison construction for one simple reason, it had the opportunity to issue state bonds without gaining approval from voters.
Surprisingly, private prisons are nothing new in US history. In the mid 1800’s state legislatures awarded contracts to private entrepreneurs to operate and mange Louisianans state prisons. Initially, these prisons were supposed to turn a profit for the state or at least pay for themselves. The private corporations promised to control the delinquents at no cost to the state. As the system spread, labor and businesses complained that using unpaid convict labor constituted “unfair ethical treatment”. While state officials remained indifferent or were bought off by prison interests, prisoners suffered malnourishment, frequent whippings, overwork and over crowdedness.
Prison management companies and United States corporations are increasing the number they use as a ready low cost. Prison and prisoners have become big businesses which are keeping profits from convict labor. Unicore and Wackenhut are examples of corporations that have privately owned and contracted prisons. Patrick Cannan, director of corporate relations for Wackenhut argues on their behalf, “our only incentive is to show a progressive rehabilitation model…we want to rehabilitate them.” We should not forget to recognize that these companies gross approximately $12.78 million every year. And, without this cheap labor their company would not be as prosperous as it is. This is where the political electives in this country begin to enforce harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenders in order to ensure full prison and continue this trend of free labor. The majority of the African American population in the prison system consists of non-violent drug offenders. Thus, a highly overcrowded, largely African American, non-violent offence, prisoners that fill our prisons providing cheap labor for large corporations with private contracts. Businesses whose profit opportunities depend not only on efficient management, but also upon the number of prisoners in their cells benefit profoundly from this source of cheap and sometimes free labor.
Another critical aspect of how the prison industrial complex keeps the labor is apparent in the over crowding of American prisons. Correctional officials may see danger in prisons overcrowding, but large corporations see it as opportunity. The nearly $2 million Americans behind bars mostly non-violent drug offenders means jobs for prisoners and a bonus for corporations.
While incarceration statistics have skyrocketed, crime rates have increased much more slowly. Among those arrested for violent crimes, the proportion who are African American men have changed very little over the past twenty years. Among those arrested for drug crimes, the proportion that are African American have tripled. Although drug abuse among white males are approximately the same, black men are five times more likely to be arrested for a drug offense. As a result of this, African Americans constitute about half of the inmates here in the United States. One out of every 14 black men is likely to be imprisoned at some point during his lifetime.
Another astonishing fact that this brings to the surface is that a large percentage of African American men will permanently lose their right to vote if current trends continue. In nine states, one in every four black men can never vote again because they were convicted of a felony. In states such as Washington, felons automatically lose the right to vote but may petition for the reinstatement of that right. This loss of voting rights shows the decreasing political power of blacks in America.
African Americans must take action before it s too late. We must not watch helplessly as those in power create and enforce unnecessarily harsh drug laws to breakdown our race. In fact it is the same people in power who import drugs into our country and our neighborhoods and distribute them in our communities. So, I urge African Americans people to realize that the prison industrial complex is a modern day form of slavery that not only destroys individuals, it destroys families and communities as well. If we do not defeat it, it will defeat us.
Bibliography
**Parenti, Christian, Lockdown America (London; New York: Verso, 1999) 17-19
**Lynch, Michael J. and Patterson, Britt, Race and Criminal Justice (New York: Harrow and Heinstien, 1991)
*Ranese, Celia “Todays Prison system vs. Yesterdays Slave System” USA TALK 13 March 1999
*Palmer, Louise “Numbers of Blacks in Prison nears 1 million” The Boston Globe Seattle Post Intelligencer
*United States Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics: Prison Inmate Statistics, Washington 1998
*Polowsky, Robert, “Liberal Legacy” Prison Activist Resource Center (weekly). 25 September 1998
*Smith, Phil, “Private Prisons Benefit” The Berne Collection. 1 December 1998
*Shakur, Assata, “Letter from Assata Shakur on the prison industrial complex” 25 October 1999
*Schlosser, Eric, “The Prison Industrial Complex” The Atlantic Monthly. December 1998 Vol. 282 No.6
*- Magazine or newspaper article
** - Book resource
Incarceration of a People
Ayesha Young
Our very best writers will produce any essay or term paper you are looking for! We offer reasonable prices and deliver top quality papers on virtually any topic. Our service is available 24/7. Be sure that we are reliable and consistent.
Imagine a place where you have access to anything and everything one could want. Some would say that is only existent in a utopia, and some would say that describes the Internet. Many adults go on to the net and access pornographic material that would be unsuitable for children. This is called cyberporn. The controversy lies in the fact that children are accessing these materials also. Government, activist groups, and concerned parents are fighting to regulate obscene material found over the Internet to protect children. The first amendment is the only thing protecting adults from losing their rights to obtain pornographic or indecent material on the net. Under the first amendment the government must not regulate cyberporn. Online sex has been around since the first bulletin boards were available over the computer in the early 1980's. People would pay to down load pornographic pictures and talk dirty to each other. Usenet groups took control of porn after the Internet came about. They did not charge people to down load picture and to interact with others. In result, Internet porn grew (Rosen 16). Things have changed drastically since then with over a million different sites available to access porn. Now it is not just for adults. Children are accessing the obscene materials. This brings rise to issues of how to protect them from problems that can arise. The materials they view, could influence children. They could also be subjected to cybersex in a chat room full of people that could be three times their age. Worst of all pedophilias could influence children to meet with them outside of the computer. The government and the United States citizens must now figure out how to protect our children from the effects of cyberporn, and yet at the same time protect the adults from loosing their constitutional rights. In response to the need to protect children the Communications Decency Act was passed. The first part of the CDA states if you display “indecent” or “patently offensive” information on the Internet, “in a manner available to a person under eighteen years of age,” you are a criminal and have broken the law. The second part of the CDA reads you have a defense against prosecution if you take “reasonable, effective, and appropriate action” by restricting access to minors by needing a credit card (verified), debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. This act is to be thought of as a way to legally zone porn behind and electric gate that can only be accessed by those who have adult identification. To receive full access to pornographic materials, one can pay a one-time fee of $9.95 to an “Adult Check” service (Levy 54). Also the Child Pornography Protection Act has been passed. It is to combat the use of computer technology that enables a pornographer to alter a picture of a child to make it seem as though the child engaged in an explicit sex act (Quittner 74). Rulings about child pornography have existed for years and will always enacted whether it is in the cyber universe or in magazine and movies. State laws are also being made against smut found on the inter net. New York passed a law making information found on the Internet that would be illegal if published in a book or magazine, illegal. People who violate the law could receive up to four years in jail (Rosen 16). The Exon amendment, if passed, will make communication between adults limited and restrict kids from accessing these materials. This is part of the House of Representatives Contract with the American people saying that they need to protect children from the exposure to pornography over the Internet (Rafter A3). The Supreme court is having a lot of conflict with these new laws so until they can be passed parents will need to use the technology that is already available to censor the net. Children can get into a lot of trouble and bad situations while visiting a cyberporn site. The worst possible situation is if they were becoming a victim of a pedophile while in a cybersex chat room. After visiting some of the sites, “...pedophiles will use the materials to arouse themselves and then seek out children...Whether it’s simulated technology or it’s the real stuff, it arms a pedophile so it’s easier to find children and molest them. (Stevens A4).” With out needing to identify yourself on the net, it is easy for adults to engage in obscene conversations with children. Pedophiles also go into children’s chat rooms and persuade them to give out information like a telephone number or address so they can arrange a “visit”. This opens the opportunity for physical harm to be done to a child. Kids are very eager to view pornographic materials. It is to hard to purchase them if you are under the age of 18, but they have no problem finding what they want on the Internet. The only problem is that some of the pictures viewed on the net are worse than what you would find in a typical porno-magazine. These images also if viewed at an unsuitable age could influence a child the wrong way. When an immature kid views a “woman bound and being burned by cigarettes, pierced with swords, and having sex with a German shepherd,” can create false images of women and a pseudo reality. It also introduces kids to sex at a much earlier age than ever before (Levy 55). President Clinton expresses, “...that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this act (censorship of the Internet) to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted through computer networks (Bray C7).” Many parents are in an uproar since discovering the dangers to children on the Internet. Parents all over have been pulling the plug on their kids after discovering what they have access to and why they spend so much time of the computer. One woman expresses when she found out her sons were viewing “pornographic pictures in full color” how horrified she was and immediately discontinued their use of the net. When parents view materials accessed by their kids they find that most of the material is not suitable for most adults (Tipton 67). An even bigger fear than viewing the material is finding out that their child has an older “cyberpal”. “There’s a lot of sick people out there and those people think they have a right to these things,” complains an angry mother (Stevens A4). Parents can not always be there with their children to make sure that they can see that they are not accessing smut. It is too easy for kids to get around the electronic gates that the need for a credit card to access sites when they can steal their parents. There are a lot of uncertainties and risks that go along with allowing children to use the Internet. The Supreme Court has struck down almost all of the new laws concerning regulation of the Internet on the grounds that they violate the first amendment. The first amendment says that the citizens should be exposed to a diversity of views, whether they want to or not (Topaz A2). The CDA was struck down because it was a clear violation of free speech. All of the proposals do protect children, but trample on the rights of adults to communicate with each other freely. The Supreme Court ruled that the new technology “...would receive the highest level of protection. Internet speakers will not be shackled with the regulations that limit content on television and radio; instead, they will enjoy the freedom granted to printed matter. And it will be up to the parents, not the government, to keep kids from accessing smut (Miller and Mauro 84).” Newt Gingrich has spoken out against the Exon amendment saying that it has no real impact because it is in violation of the first amendment for restricting the rights of adults (Rosen 17). When congress tried to pass a law making it a crime to let make indecent material be available to children on the Internet, Justice Paul Stevens wrote, “It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults (Tipton 12).” So far they have not figured out a way to be able to regulate cyberporn and the Internet with out violating the constitution. If the government had successfully regulated cyberporn, there is no telling where the censorship would stop. Government tried to regulate adult-oriented words with the CDA. This would mean that topics such as safe sex could not be discussed over the Internet. This is not protecting children, but depriving them of material that could be very useful and valuable (Bray C7). Many of the proposals would have outlawed information including AIDS, Pulitzer Prize-winning plays, museum exhibits and, the Vanity Fair cover showing a picture of pregnant Demi Moore (Levy 20). Another reason they should not regulate cyberporn is the overwhelming number of volunteering business people making millions of dollars. Many of strippers have decided to stop working at strip joints and start their own web sites because of the safety it offers. Right now the Cyberporn business is in demand, so why not give the people what they want? Some customers spend anywhere from $150 to $6,000 a month just to interact on videophone sex web sites (Rafter A1). Cyberporn has opened up a whole new job rhelm, in which our economy can not say no to (Rosen 15). “There are means of controlling material that parents do not want their kids to view (Levy 21).” Several devises already exist for parents that will help them filter out what they do not want their children to see. Surfwatch, a software package, allows parents to have a list of forbidden sites that can not be reached. It also always parents to program it to watch for any kind of obscene language (Miller and Mauro 85). PICS are rating and filtering technology. Parents or a third party can set up a self-censor program to their values for any document online that is PICS compatible. This always each household to censor out information found to be offending (Quittner 74). RSAC is another devise that allows self-censorship through a parental rating system or based upon age appropriateness. “We’re going to get the V-chip for the Internet (Stevens A4).” All of these devices and all of the others that are now available make personal choice possible with out government censorship. All of the proposed acts to censor the Internet had to do with objectional materials and offensive language. The danger in allowing this to happen is that not just sex and foul language is diminished, but information on topics that are sex related like STD’s or AIDS would be censored. Most medical web sites would need to be “cleaned up” for publishing material on how to put on a condom and how to protect your self while having intercourse. Stories and new paper articles about rape would no longer be able to be published over the net. The Internet would become completely “PG 13.” One of the biggest dangers to regulating cyberporn would be the increase in strip clubs and adult movie theaters. Many strippers have left the clubs because of the safety that the Internet provides. It also is a great way for them to make more money and promote their body with out getting diseases or raped (Levy 24). Internet providers are expressing an increase in concern for censorship because of a fear of becoming the “thought police.” Acts and bills being passed to further regulate the Internet and particularly cyberporn talk about fees of $100,000 for violators that “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” other consumers over the net (Quittner 74). Most of the censorship plans not only violated the first amendment, but discriminated against people in other ways. People spend thousands of dollars on web sites and more money on servers and high-speed phone lines to become more accessible to the public. They make their money back and then some millions extra, but the government would have to shut down these businesses if they were aloud to censor because the product they sell is sex. Cyber porn businesses would be denied their right to free enterprise because their product is so taboo. It is loved and hated, but making them millionaires filling the demands of the public (Rosen 15). Many of the restrictions that would be put on adult sites due to censorship would be to have a credit card as a form of adult identification. This is clear discrimination against those adults with out a credit card. For whatever reason that an adult does not have a credit card, they should not be denied access to pornography. Restricting cyberporn to user that are of eighteen years of age or older discriminates against those who are mature enough to handle the information, but not legally of age. Seventeen-year-old kids are not much different in maturity than eighteen-year-olds. Movie theater ratings for pornography or indecent materials are NC-17, so why should the Internet not be also. Bruce Ennis speaks out against the CDA “... this court has repeatedly and unanimously ruled that government cannot constitutionally reduce the adult population to reading and viewing what is only appropriate for children. That is what this law does (Tipton 13).” But it is not just the government that is making laws that discriminate, the state are also. Virginia has made it illegal for state employees and college professors to access sexually indecent materials online. Georgia is trying to take away the reason that people love communicating over the Internet so much by making it illegal for users to remain anonymous while interacting over the net. All forms of discrimination are present when the Internet is regulated and censored. The issue that struck up this whole conflict, family values and how to protect our children, is being re-evaluated by the courts. Justices of the Supreme Court side with the words of Bruce Enniss in the decision against censorship, “...it will be up to the parents, not the government, to keep kids from accessing smut (Bray C7).” Why must everyone suffer because parents do not want to do their job? The courts are giving the rights to the families to decide for themselves what is inappropriate for the children by striking down government regulation on the grounds that there are plenty of self censoring devices already on the market (Quittner 74). It is the responsibility of the parent to either censor the materials themselves, or teach them about what they are viewing to bring them up to the maturity level of the Internet. If parents are that concerned about the materials that their children have access to, then they should chaperone their children while on the Internet (Levy 24). We should help our children learn how to deal with the information on the Internet and then allow them to expose themselves to it already having previous education. Kids need a way to discover their selves as sexual people. One would think that with all of the diseases out there that a parent would rather their child experiment with sex over the Internet instead of learning the hard way with other kids. People do not get pregnant or contract the AIDS virus by having cyber sex. Also viewing pornography is a way of letting children and teenagers explore their sexuality with out embarrassment. If kids go into the real world with more exposure to sex, when thrown into a relationship they will be more knowledgeable, than curious. A kid can discover sexual identity by themselves with out all the pressures having a physical relationship. If we teach our children about cyberporn and cybersex, then they can use it to their advantage as an educational experience (Rafter A3). Family values are being regarded in the highest manner by ruling that concerned parents must keep the family intact and educate their kids to truly protect them against the information of the Internet. To see the true effect of the government regulating cyberporn, one must look into the future. If the government successfully censors cyberporn, the results may not have an immediate or apparent effect that would be detrimental to society, but the opportunities given to the government could redefine our democracy that our founding Fathers nether intended: constitutional rights would be diminished. First, the government censors cyberporn that leads to censorship of the entire Internet. If the judicial branch aloud this to happen the American public would have to fear what could be censored next. If the most technologically advanced form of media can be censored, why not books and magazines? Free speech would be no longer. The right to say what you want and express yourself in any manner you want with out infringing on the rights of others would no longer protect the citizens. It would be like our society would be going back in time before the eighteenth century when government had free reign over its subjects. Imagine growing up in a world where self-expression was stifled and sex was once again a taboo topic. As far as the censorship of cyberporn’s effect on sex and pornography could take two different paths: either sexual behavior would increase, or it would slowly become more conservative. Many strippers and hookers have turned to the net as a form of safe sex and in result of that sex became more popular and is spreading to children at a younger age. If the sex businesses lost their addresses in cyber space, they would relocate to the streets and bring the consumer to the sex. Just like during prohibition, they found a way to keep it alive. Or it could go off on the other tangent of slowly the government instilling thoughts that its indecent to express yourself sexually and slowly taper off into just an act of procreation. The effects of the government regulating cyberporn are unpredictable, but definitely not positive and destructive. The main result off the government being able to censor cyberporn would be that government decided for everyone person what their values are. Government said that the materials you could access in cyberspace were not appropriate for you and your family. It is a known fact that people love and crave it so if they con not get it over the net, they will get it some how unless the government cracks down on that also. So far the victories over censorship of the net have been very promising that our constitutional rights will never be taken away from us. These victories are not just for cyberporn but for the future of free speech on the Internet, and quite possibly the future of free speech period. In order to preserve our constitutional rights the government must not censor cyberporn, not only for the immediate infringements and discrimination, but for the future.
Word Count: 3176
Copyright 1999-2004 Wow Essays, All Rights
Reserved
Design by Dream Net Studio
