Spring 2000: "Access Denied, R-Rating, V-Chip": Should Youth Access to the Internet and Mass Media be Restricted? Discussion Responsibility (creator's or distributor's) Q:  It seems that much of the responsibility for controlling access to “objectionable” material falls on the suppliers (music stores preventing underage buyers from purchasing CDs with explicit lyrics) and intermediaries (libraries that must filter Internet access for students). At what point does the responsibility for preventing access to such material fall on the person who created it? -- Marion (KS) High School A. Eric Nuzum (WKSU-FM Radio): I’m going to assume that by saying material is "objectionable" that it is not illegal or obscene. Assuming that, I don’t think I can see ANY example where the producer of the material is responsible for controlling access. Putting a business, such as an entertainment company, into the role of making moral decisions is very spicy. Something that is very difficult for most people to understand is that businesses are in business to make money. Their measure of success is profit. Please don’t think I am knocking on capitalism ­ I think capitalism is great. I just think it is dangerous to expect businesses to make moral decisions. Let me give an example: If a record company wants to succeed, it releases records that people will buy. If Universal releases Marilyn Manson CDs, it is because they sell,­ not because of a moral decision (or lack of a moral decision) on the part of the record company regarding the appropriateness of the material. Marilyn Manson has a recording contract because he sells tons of CDs. As soon as Marilyn Manson no longer sells CDs, they won’t allow him to record them. It is business decision, pure and simple; whether the music is good, bad, moral, immoral, violent, loving - whatever, ­ makes no difference. The same goes for video game manufactures, TV networks, and movie producers. They produce what people are willing to purchase, watch, or use. If you want to point fingers of blame or responsibility for violence in TV, video games, movies, or music ­ point at the consumers. They are the ones who buy this stuff by the millions. As soon as those tastes change, so will the products offered by these companies. A. Bruce Taylor (National Law Center for Children and Families): The duty to restrict harmful and illegal material falls on everyone, including parents, government, industry, and even other users. Adults who sell "adult" pornography should sell it only to adults, and adult users should get it in a way that doesn't expose it to minor children. The First Amendment allows adults to have "adult" material that is not obscene and allows juveniles to have materials that are not "harmful to minors." The law can only impose some limits, and the police can only arrest a few of the violators. That's why parents must be more cautious in protecting their children from the abuse and selfishness of others; schools must provide serious education in a setting that distinguishes false truths; and libraries should provide access to all but the most illegal and clearly harmful materials without making the library a dangerous place for kids to hang out. Children and juveniles have a right to use the library as much as adults do, but as long as the Internet contains materials that are illegal or dangerous for children, everyone must do what they can to make responsible choices. A. Chris Hansen (American Civil Liberties Union): It depends on what kind of material you are talking about. In your music store example, the law says that adults can buy those CDs even if they have “objectionable” material. So, you can’t really punish the singer or the producer for making the CD. If you believe underage buyers should not be able to buy the CD’s, the only thing you can do is have the sellers figure out who is underage and who isn’t. If you think libraries can filter to underage readers (and I find that idea very troubling), you again have to have a method by which libraries can distinguish underage readers from adults. A problem arises when the supplier can’t distinguish the age of the reader. Thus, a web site can’t tell if it is being read by a 14-year old or by a 65-year old. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court said that in that case, suppliers can’t censor. A court in Virginia said the same thing about a library that censored library computers for all readers. Can’t do it. On the other hand, if you are talking about material that is illegal for adults as well as underage buyers, such as obscenity, then the authorities should go after the person who created it. (There’s a complex legal definition of obscenity. It isn’t just speech about sex, even gross speech about sex. Obscenity is illegal for everyone, regardless of age.) A. Judith Krug (American Library Association): The 1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It provides for free speech with very, very few exceptions. It does not require that speech be truthful, sensitive, tasteful, respectful or anything else. Now, if the speaker goes beyond what is considered socially appropriate, he or she must live with the consequences of his or her speech. But, unless we change the 1st Amendment, each of us is free to express our views as we chose. Note: The views expressed here have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, and accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association, nor do they represent the official position or policies of the ABA Standing Committee on Public Education. Back to Discussion Main Page >>Pilot Classrooms >>Discussion >>Experts >>Student Poll Spring 2000 Summit Home | Summit | The Issues | Legal Background | Interest Groups Lessons/Activities | Other Resources National Online Youth Summit Home