Citation: Mitchell, Kimberly et al.  “The Exposure of Youth to Unwanted Sexual Material on the Internet: A National Survey of Risk, Impact and Prevention.” Youth and Society. Vol. 34 No. 3, March 2003: 330-358.  Accessed 6 April 2009.  .

 

            The authors of the study gave a survey to 1,501 Internet-users between the ages of 10 and 17, asking them about their inadvertent exposure to sexually explicit content while online.  The results found that 25 % of those polled unintentionally encountered sexually explicit material while on the Internet. The people who discovered sexual content tended to be heavy Internet users and were older teens. About one-fifth of those who accidentally viewed the content were embarrassed and very or extremely upset by it. The minors whose parents had put filtering software on their computers were 40 % less likely to have been exposed to unwanted sexual material.  However, most parents did not install filtering softwares on computers. Other forms of parental control, such as restricting the amount time their children could spend on the Internet, did not reduce chance of exposure.

 

            This study is significant to my paper for a few reasons.  Firstly, the experiment established that children are inadvertently exposed to sexual content, and that this exposure can cause harm.  Knowing that sexual material on the Internet is a problem establishes a greater need for remedies to the situation.  Additionally, this study is important because it measures the effectiveness of different types of controls on preventing youth exposure to sexually explicit material in a relatively scientific manner.  Since filtering was determined to be more effective than parental restrictions, yet was not perfect at preventing exposure to the content, perhaps resources should be devoted to improving filtering softwares and persuading parents to install filtering programs on their children’s computers.  The authors noted that a problem with the study could be that adolescents who have filtering softwares on their computers happen to be more likely to use the web in ways that would shield them from exposure to sexual content, and not the other way around.  If this is the case, perhaps the best way to protect minors from harmful content is to educate them better about smart Internet use.

Citation: Etzioni, Amitai.  “On Protecting Children from Speech.” Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2004: 3-53. Google Scholar. 5 April 2009. http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-1/Etzioni.pdf

 

            This article discusses and analyses the issues concerning children’s rights to free speech.  According to the author, past court cases care more about how restricting access for children would inadvertently affect adults than they do about how there is a compelling state interest to protect children from harmful speech.  To remedy this, Etzoini thinks Internet access for children and adults should become separate.  Where it is not possible to make a separation, government regulation is needed, because voluntary measures, such as parents choosing to purchase filtering softwares, are generally ineffective.  A review of research studies concludes children can be harmed by viewing objectionable media content, although this has been more definitely proven for violent content than for pornography.  Etzoini also says that as children get older, they should have greater free speech rights, and should have their content restricted less.

 

            The article provides a counterargument to some of the other documents published concerning how children can be protected from harmful content on the Internet. The Supreme Court cases concerning section 223 of the CDA and COPA were struck down in part because it was believed that there was truly no way for to restrict content for children without also inadvertently restricting it for adults.  Etzioni, however, believes there may be ways to separate Internet access based on age. Additionally, this article differs from the arguments made by Thierer, because it  favors governmental regulation of content over self-regulation. Etizoni’s reason for the ineffectiveness of voluntary regulation does however relate to a concept Thierer discusses – that of self efficacy.  If people’s motivation to filter the Internet content of minors, self-regulation could potentially work. The problem right now is that efficacy is too low for people to want to take an initiative and regulate content.

This case provides an example of when a service provider was not granted the safe harbor protection of the DMCA.  Perfect 10, a nude-women-photos website and magazine, claim copyright, trademark, and rights of publicity violations against Cybernet Ventures, an age-verification service (AVS).

            Cybernet Ventures is the largest web AVS and it create revenue from users registering their website, usually getting there via links from affiliated sites, to whom Cybernet pays commission.  In response to Perfect 10’s  claims, Cybernet attempted to hide its direct financial interest or relationship, claiming that even 10,000 infringing images wouldn’t establish significant worth (pg 25 of pdf).  In doing this, it attempted to cover up a strong argument that wouldn’t allow it to afford DMCA protection.  In addition (on pg 25), we see that Cybernet failed to quickly take action in removing infringing material after Perfect10 produced a copyright infringement notice.  This conflicts with the DMCA’s “notice and take-down” provision. 

            The court refused to apply the DMCA safe harbor protection on Cybernet, due to those mentioned reasons.  Cybernet simply did not meet the requirements as stated in section 512(c) regarding financial benefits and immediate takedowns.  Between these two ideas, the financial benefits test will be of most relevance to YouTube’s standing, as we know much of its revenue is based off ads and user visits.  Just as the infringing pictures helped boost Cybernet’s revenues, the infringing videos probably increases YouTube advertisement revenues.  I think this could provide a historical case for the determination of YouTube’s legality, depending on what is found concerning YouTube’s ad placements.

 

A 1999 article exploring the controversy behind the censorship of Lolita.  Chronicles its initial printing in France, followed by its two-year ban shortly thereafter, and ultimately its overwhelming success in the U.S. following its 1958 publication:

"Lolita" was an enormous success, the first book since "Gone With the Wind" to sell 100,000 copies in the first three weeks of publication. The lack of outrage over the book in America might be attributed to the tenor of the times: sex, and even teen sexuality, was 'in.' Elvis Presley was gyrating to the top of the pop charts and films like "Blackboard Jungle" were glamorizing youth and even juvenile delinquency. Parents were uneasy, but they had more glaring affronts to middle-class values to worry about. "Pedophile" was not a term one read in the morning newspaper. A cynic might add that "Lolita" is a complex and often tricky book, and that only the most fanatical Philistine, intent on ferreting out every incidence of filth, was likely to read it to the end.

Essay confronting the issues of censorship and morality.  Includes discussion of many popular, and (once) controversial books inlcuing Sister Carrie, Ulysees, An American Tragedy, and Lolita.  Chronicles many arguments against provocative writing, inlcuding: "How, sirs," asked the district attorney [in the trial regarding An American Tragedy] "would you like to have your fifteen-year-old daughters read that?"

Essay regarding censorship in film, with a brief mention of the movie version of Lolita and the controversy it sparked.  Although the focus is primarily on film, the author, Thomas Cripps, does a wonderful job setting the scene for the censorship mentality in the U.S., particularly in the 1940s and 1950s.