Many say that one reason that children learn so much violence is because of the Internet and this is one reason why we should control the Internet because it is a haven for people to speak their minds and they deliver the wrong messages to our children. Although this is logical the Internet is a form of speech and must be protected just as any other form of speech. In the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, Charles Brandenburg was convicted of violating an Ohio act, which prohibited the advocating of sabotage and violence. The court found that this statute violated the first amendment, right to speech, and was therefore null and void. Just as Brandenburg's right to speech was protected, Internet speech must be protected. A child can attend a Ku Klux Klan rally which preaches hate speech, however, if the child's parents are concerned about protecting the child from such speech then they must keep the child away from such assemblies. The Internet is commonly called a forum and can be compared to an assembly. It is the responsibility of the parents to know what their children are doing on the Internet and which web pages, chat rooms, and newsgroups the child is attending. Just television shows have ratings, most web pages and forums with obscene or violent material have disclaimers. It is necessary that the parents are aware of these disclaimers and where their children are going on the Internet. However, there are certain types of speech which are not protected by the first amendment. The Internet is a public forum and should be treated as one. Just as you cannot say you are going to "kill the president" in public, you cannot say this on the Internet. The "clear and present danger" doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Schenk v. U.S. applies here. This doctrine states that any speech that threatens immediate national security is illegal, ex. Anti-draft propaganda during wartime.

s of the argument, who is to decide which is the right and just way to regulate the internet. "Despite the court's decision, lawmakers and lawyers continue to disagree over the legality of regulating the Internet" (Evans). This causes problems for the legal system because the Internet is near to impossible to control. In one way or another most decisions for laws that could be made will in the long run upset some group or someway be found unconstitutional because of the difference in the democracy of our government. So to put barriers on what information can flow on the Internet is going to take a long time to draw out and decide what is appropriate and what is against the law.

Just like the press, religion also uses the Internet as a way to gain an audience or to send out a message. With email and web pages different religious groups find there masses and bring a personal appeal to their church or their religious organization. Many restrictions on the Internet can possibly have a long-term effect on religious groups spreading their message to the masses. For the government to restrict someone else's religion goes against the first amendment, for example, if a religious denomination worships in the nude and wants to post it on the internet, who gives the authority to the government to say that putting that on the internet is a violation of the first amendment. Just like in the Communications Decency Act, this would also hinder the religiou

Some common words found in the essay are:
Decency Act, Filtering Act, Supreme Court, Internet Internet, Press Internet, Klux Klan, Religion Internet, Internet Advancements, Internet Evans, Charles Brandenburg, supreme court, freedom speech, web pages, speech protected, amendment internet, decency act, speech internet, communications decency act, communications decency, religious cults publish, people believe, abridging freedom speech, press internet, constitution congress law,
Approximate Word count = 2278
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)