The courts decided that in order not to influence the jurors outside of the courtroom that a gag order would be put on media coverage of the trial. Conventional media complied, but an Internet site appeared. This was in turn shut down by the police, but still another appeared (Censorship and the Internet 1). Today there is no way of effectively tracking and determining from where a bulletin was posted, especially with the automatic dialing and encryption technology available. Thus even trying to censor the Internet as a whole would be only an exercise in futility. .
Although pornography and potentially destructive material exist on the Internet, not all potentially offensive material shows violent sex acts with children or instructs one how to make bombs. Many users transmit important health-related information about sex. Some relate their views using strong language that may be considered unsuitable. Still, some convey news and information about human rights and civil liberties(ACLU vs. Reno Brief 1). Every user has the right to such communication. Recently, while doing a presentation, for a history class, concerning the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the KKK home page was accessed. At this site there was a plethora of information detailing their beliefs. If censorship, such as that desired by some government officials, was in effect, a site, such as above, would never have been available and my most abundant source of information would have been gone. Hate literature and pornography do exist, but it is insignificant to the legitimate applications of the Internet. Banning of material that may be offensive to one, but may be quite valuable to another, deprives people of their civil right to information. .
Pro-censorship advocates argue that some child might unsuspectingly stumble upon unsuitable information. This is not true. Online users are not bombarded with grotesque pictures and hate groups' paraphernalia.
