Is it wise to censor the Net? Legislation raises questions about freedom of speech and decency.

Pornography, racist propaganda and violent computer games are available on the Internet, just a mouse-click away from your child's eyes. Do your children need protection from such "entertainment" and "information?"

Senators Jim Exon (D-Neb.) and Daniel R.Coats (R-Ind.) are pushing legislation through the House of Representatives that would allow certain material sent over the Internet to be censored. The Communications Decency Act, passed by the Senate in June, makes it a crime to send or receive pornographic material over the Internet. If it passes in the House of Representatives and is signed by President Clinton, the so-called cyberporn bill will become law.

Some cybernauts are concerned about the recent increase in pornography on the Net, and they have lobbied for some form of censorship. Others, however, including some leading African Americans, are worried that any attempt by the government to censor the Net could end up banning views not popular with mainstream white America.

"[The Net] is the greatest opportunity we've had of getting our opinions out there, especially into the African diaspora," says E. David Ellington, president and CEO of NetNoir, an Afrocentric online service based in San Francisco. Ellington and other African Americans consider the Net a place where black people can discuss and debate concerns and political solutions that affect political policy. Unfortunately, the political solution of one group may be something that another group, or even the government, wants to censor.

The dual nature of this debate has members of Congress battling with their consciences. Khalil Munir, legislative assistant to Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), says, "My boss supports First Amendment freedoms, but is also supportive of protection of decency." As a result, Munir says that "there is probably a middle ground, but getting there won't be easy.

Towns, for one, supports a counterproposal sponsored by Reps. C. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The Cox-Wyden proposal encourages the development of intelligent software that restricts access to files. That would make individuals, not the government, responsible for censorship. Existing software programs, such as Net Nanny, Cybersitter and Surfwatch, already enable people to block undesirable material on their own computers. These packages work by not allowing files that contain key words, like sex, to be opened.

Duane G. Johnson, president of ACTOM (Aiming Christians Toward Our Mission Inc.), a technology consulting company in Des Moines, Iowa, says that cyberspace censoring itself just won't happen. "We need some sort of management to censor porn," Johnson asserts, suggesting that it should be a joint effort that includes parents, government and online service companies.

Andrew Kantor, senior editor of Internet World, cautions that the cyberporn bill is an invitation for government to start looking at other types of censorship. "Who is going to decide what is being banned and what is not?" he asks. He also claims that the government is making a big deal over nothing, contending that pornography represents less than 1% of the content on the Internet.

Perhaps the irony of this debate is that even if the cyberporn bill passes, it would do little to stop the problem of pornography on the Net, because the bill is national legislation aimed at controlling what is actually an international network. "It's virtually impossible [to regulate the Net] because of the global nature of this communications device," Ellington says. "It would mean monitoring every phone call [into the Internet], which is impossible to do."

Still, many computer industry experts are betting the cyberporn bill will pass. Where the censorship police will go from there is anyone's guess.