Are electronic documents better than printed documents? Modern technology has taken us long way from the world of manual tasks, such as the writing and printing of books. With that technology, comes the challenges that we all must face when we look for improving the quality of life.  But has it really?

One improvement can be found in the area of the visually impaired.  Computers have allowed those with visual problems to adjust their computer’s volume or install software that will allow them to receive information on the Internet. Those who are hearing impaired can also adjust their computers to receive and interact with electronic documents such as email, which resembles the T. T.Y. device that was used when one wanted to place a phone call. This is just a couple of the many arguments that can be made for electronic documents.  Kudos is often given to the advancement of this type of technology due to its ability to assist all groups within society to communicate and thus improve their quality of life.  Another improvement can be found in the educational system.  Children are now being introduced to the computer as early as kindergarten.  There are some instances, where parents have bought computers and “age appropriate” learning software for preschoolers! Now it is much easier to do research on topics given to students from elementary school to the university level.  Libraries have also found it to be easier to catalog, to store, and reference materials with a quick click of the mouse.  However, there are problems that go along with this new World Wide Web of information.  A couple of issues have been raised when dealing with Internet activities, one of which is the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and its connection to cyber crime.

The First 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.”

For many people the Internet, for all of its information, has been a blessing to those who use it.  There are also those who find it to be a nightmare. The way the laws are set up they primarily deal with only printed documents.  Because of this new technology in information sharing, the laws need to be changed to keep up with the rapid growth of the Internet popularity.  There are more and more people on the net that are becoming victims of a world that in essence is in complete anarchy.  The laws were outdated and there aren’t any regulating agencies that can set any real boundaries for this virtual community. Every time there is a plight to place limitations that is in the best interest of would be victims within this world wide web, it is met with strong opposition from such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming that it violates the first amendment rights to free speech. But, where does it say that threatening to commit crimes, such as murder, be covered under this freedom of speech?

“Communications Decency Act of 1996 (Computer Section)
        The Communications Decency Act (CDA) is actually a section from the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996
        Following is the excerpt of the CDA pertaining to computer communications:
        This title may be cited as the ''Communications Decency Act of 1996''.
        SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE
        COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.
        Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof:
        Whoever- in interstate or foreign communications knowingly-uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Read more about this case and how this act was found to be unconstitutional by the ACLU.
 

It wasn’t until recently, that anyone really began to take a look at the laws governing the Internet.  Each time a case is heard for the violations of their constitutional rights, a decision is made and will remain “case law” until either legislation passes new laws, OR, another case is heard and changes the rulings altogether. Given the example of the tragedy at Columbine High School.  We have witnessed the killings of innocent people, and what is so sad is that there were warning signs all over the place – particularly the gunmen’s gruesome essay that he posted on the Internet. Had someone in this society stepped in and taken action in recognizing the  “deviant behaviors” such as those exhibited by the gunmen, lives may have been saved.  Although the first amendment, freedom of speech, is protected when the gunmen posted what their thoughts and feelings were, the part where they were threatening to commit the crimes should not have been protected.  These were threats of murder.  The first amendment does not apply to threats from individuals and the actions that were implied. This is where the laws need to be defined, does a person have the right to spiel off these sorts of threats on the Internet, be hidden behind the red tape that the Internet service providers have set up to avoid discovery of a person’s identity, and be allowed to get away with such things before the action takes place???   The ability to commit such crimes is key when determining the viability of these threats. But, if you don’t know with whom you are dealing,  the ability of committing these crimes would be anyone’s guess.  Until that threat is recognized as having serious potential in becoming a crime, and when the laws voted in by a society that supports proactive measures that will give the enforcement agencies what they need to prevent it, they will continue to be left with the “wait and see” attitude.
 

In Timothy J. Walton’s Internet Privacy Law website, he states that,
“The United States Supreme Court has stated that American citizens have the protection of the Fourth Amendment (freedom from search and seizure absent warrant) when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, however, there is no privacy right to protect. Files stored on disk or tape in the home are protected, but the rule becomes less clear when applied to files stored on an Internet access provider's server. Web servers, on the other hand, may be protected by federal law. Some argue that consent of the access provider, however, is all that is required for law enforcement authorities to search and seize any files in the possession of that access provider. Internet service providers may have a lot of information about the users because servers routinely record information about users' e-mail and web browsing habits.”

But when the U.S. Supreme Court takes the following position and defines what the Internet is, “as ‘the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed is entitled to highest protection from governmental intrusion.’" We will continue to see each and every legal action taken against a perpetrator will be challenged under the rights to free speech and not be responsible for its contents because they are protected by their right to privacy.  Only when the victims are people from affluent families, that are politically connected will we then see as a society a change in the laws that would be more effective in the apprehension and determent of criminals.

As we now know today, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) cannot regulate Internet activity, because they do not use radio waves which have to abide to censorship rules to protect everyone from this sort of publication.  So in turn it leaves us with the notion that the Internet, cyberspace, is a free for all and anyone can take create electronic documents and live out whatever they feel or fantasize with their privacy intact. But, there are those who are not stable and can be "set off" at any time. In Amy Goldman's "The Time Before the Crime" the psychological profile of many criminals who have been researched and discovered that their crimes had started with a fantasy, and once that fantasy is not enough, that person who is suseptable to "pre-crime stressers" will eventually turn it into a reality.  When we notice these fantasies being played out on the screen, one has to ask themselves, who is this person? Can he or she be my neighbor?

If you want to make a difference write to your State Representatives and tell them you want to get  criminals off of the net! Use the First Amendment for which it was intended, to make this a better place to live!