MY WORLD: [my favorite things][writings & musings]
CYBERGRRL WEBSTATION: [planet cybergrrl] [cybergrrl village] [webgrrls] [femina] [womenzone]
In these dark ages of censorship and the questionable treatment of our First Amendment rights, everyone is wondering: are we gonna get in trouble?
That oh so nebulous word "indecent" that they use in That Bill doesn't mean anything by legal standards but can mean anything to anyone anywhere, depending on their beliefs, experiences, or even their mood. (The First Amendment to the Constitution protects free speech and legally - as withheld by the courts - the Constitution does not protect "obscene" speech or information).
So how often do "they" actually go online? You know who they are, the ones who passed That Bill. We can only imagine the reality. And wouldn't we love to see the online bills and other charges that their offices had to incur in order to amass that incriminating "evidence" of indecency online, those terrible images that will warp young minds and destroy the delicate balance that keeps our youth from turning into vile and loathsome criminals and perverts. Oh that's right, they are protecting our children from the horrors and monsters of the online world. Wouldn't it be nice if they looked at the real world first, especially at a justice system which can free murderers, rapists and pedophiles on a technicality.
What does That Bill mean for people, including women, who produce Web sites or for their Service Providers who house the sites? One person's idea of "indecent" is another person's life-saving information. I remember an episode of LA Law where a female newscaster, in the course of reporting a series on breast cancer, offered to have a mammogram and discovered that she had breast cancer. She allowed the news cameras to follow her journey through a mastectomy and chemo, then bared her breast (and scars) to the camera and soonafter her employer fired her. There is a scene when they are selecting jurors for her discrimination trial. What still haunts me is the woman who was questioned about the breast cancer series and she said that it was "disgusting and indecent" - that overshadowed the other woman who praised the series as crucial information which convinced her to get a mammogram herself.
What makes a site indecent? Do illustrations of a breast self-exam constitute indecent drawings? You might think that I'm overreacting or exaggerating, but remember how America Online actually didn't allow the word "breast" to be used in the name of chat rooms so a "breast cancer survivor" chat could only call themselves "cancer survivors." You know, the "b" word, that indecent word that needs to be censored. The big concern among women is that their information about reproduction, birth control or abortion (http://www.ppca.org) will put them at risk of being fined. Is someone going to go to jail for publishing information about AIDS or Safe Sex? Who will be the judge of what is important health information and what is smut?
And what about art? The nude female and nude male have long been subjects of classic works of art, but then again, "nekkid bodies" are indecent, right? And let's not even get into song lyrics - didn't we already fight that fight?
Maybe this sounds extreme, but when a bill like that passes into Law with the word "indecent" as the guideline for what is not allowed on the Internet, the World Wide Web and Commercial Online Services, which one of us suddenly becomes a criminal? Hey, I'm guilty of creating sites for Avon's Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade and the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations and hosting WomenSpace which tells young girls about puberty, menstruation and their changing bodies. Tell me - are they coming to take me away?
Cybergrrl has been known to be involved in subversive behavior such as purchasing Haagendaaz Chocolate Cholate Chip icecream and then - shock, horror - eating it all herself. Come on - it's just a pint!
