MORALITY in the Age of the Net

How do we resolve different conceptions of morality?

 Each of us may have a different conception of what is “right” or “wrong” in regards to the Internet.  From pornography to hate speech to the sale of human organs, it seems that almost anything can happen over the Internet.  How much of this “questionable material” is out there and how easy it is to access is subject to much debate. 

  The private standards of individuals become problematic when translated into a medium that is publicly accessible.  Should society be permitted to establish a standard?  “Solutions” to this question generally take the form of types of regulation.  Who will regulate and to what extent become the main issues, briefly outlined in this link.  Regulation backers, such as the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association, argue that pornography and such material contribute to the moral decay of Americans, a development that could disintegrate the traditional family unit.  The loss of a family-based society, they say, leads to the loss of religion as a main element in people's lives and potentially social chaos.  Child protection is also a main concern.

  A primary type of regulation is governmental legislation.  The issue of morality on the Internet first entered the national arena in 1996 with the passage of the Communications Decency Act, which prohibited posting "indecent" or "patently offensive" materials in a public forum on the Internet.  It was subsequently declared unconstitutional for restricting citizens’ First Amendment rights.  Former President Bill Clinton, not perceived as being particularly moral himself—or at least compared to the American public—initially supported the CDA, but changed his stance.  A related but narrower law, the Child Online Protection Act, is being argued today, but is facing similar constitutional objections.

  An alternative to governmental regulation is self-regulation, enacted by a variety of means:

§         Individual users: 

From hate speech to pornography to bomb-making kits, filters can protect children from what their parents do not want them to see.  And it is not simply a matter of personal preference; pornography can have serious consequences. 

                  How have Notre Dame students and parents navigated the issue of Internet censorship on home

      computers?  Here are survey results on their use of filters and other methods.

§         Internet service providers:  

Here is the AOL policy for proper behavior.  But does it censor too much?

§         Net communities:

Some users of the Internet prefer a form of social control instead of governmental regulation—that is, sites posting “decent” material will be accepted into a particular net community, and then advertise the other sites (see the Blue Ribbon Campaign).  Some argue that government-imposed regulation will never protect us fully; a better solution is to educate yourself against the dangers of the Internet.

§         Academic communities:

What we can and can’t do at ND: The official document titled “Responsible Use of Information Technologies at Notre Dame.”

Tom Monaghan, Director of Web Administration at the ND Office of Information Technologies, relates the following:

"Currently the University does not maintain any sort of editorial-based filtering in regards to Web site access.  With the new email service upgrade, there are some spam-filtering tools in place, but they are really meant to keep all of the junk mail out of the system (it can clog up the traffic).

The cases that Notre Dame will intervene is if there are security-related events, virus proliferations, notice of copyright infringement, or if an inordinate amount of IT resources are being used, for example if a student is using 20% of the total bandwidth for the campus.  In those cases, the OIT investigates and passes the incident on to the appropriate body (Student Affairs for students, Human Resources for staff, Provost for faculty) to take the necessary actions."