Running head: Risk and the Internet

This chapter addresses the differences between the perception of encountering objectionable material on the World Wide Web and the actual percentage of such material. The authors outline the interconnected history of new communication technologies and potentially offensive material and then discuss current public perceptions of such material on the Web. They present the results from a content analysis of web pages, using the Recreational Software Advisory Council's Internet rating system. The content categories were Language, Nudity, Sex, and Violence—each on a 5-point scale. The researchers randomly selected 1067 web pages from the WebCrawler search engine database of 50,000,000 pages and the results are accurate within 3% at the 95% confidence level. The authors find that 95.1% of selected pages registered minimally on the RSACi scale. No more than 3.6% of all pages had highly objectionable material, only 2.4% had provocative sexual content and only 0.7% had notable violent content. Risk and the Internet 3 Risk and the Internet: Perception and Reality According to research overseen by Joseph Turow of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, fully one fourth of news articles on the Internet from October 1997 to October 1998 were alarmist in nature and two-thirds of these news articles raised disturbing issues about the nature and content of the World Wide Web (Turow, 1999). Additionally, parents express grave concerns about the content their children may encounter on the Web. Without a doubt, much exists on the Web that is troubling to parents of school-age children and to others who do not want to be assaulted by sexually graphic content. Yet, thirty years of agenda-setting research would suggest that a link exists between these stories of the prurient and hazardous nature of Web content and the concern of parents, many of whom do not completely understand what is available on the Web, let alone how to control their children’s access to it. Agenda-setting influences also lead the public-policy debate about the Internet. Concerns about the new media, driven by older media, help foster an alarmist state in which legislators define their roles in light of protecting citizens from the bogeyman of the Internet through legislative control of access to or dissemination of Internet content. Historically, however, the issue of curtailing objectionable material has not been solved by access controls; it is a long-standing social problem that will not likely be solved by legalistic or technical solutions. Politicians who might otherwise promote government taking a hands-off approach to many social issues are seen promoting legislation to monitor, cordon off, and choke off questionable sites. While they might deplore “Big Brother” in the boardroom, they vote for the Communications Decency Act, because they Risk and the Internet 4 desire to “protect” children from the evils of the Internet. Protectors in government and in lobbying bodies also promote the use of filtering software to keep the impressionable from the objectionable. Yet, the question arises: Why does Web content incite such fear in parents? Does it merit the press coverage it receives? Does the Web really emphasize the prurient and salacious, the vicious and the foul? Or is it, like the world around us, more a place where one must exercise caution in the dark places—but where these places are relatively limited in their number and scope? This chapter attempts to grapple with some of these questions and to suggest public policy strategy in addressing these topics. First, we present historical background on the confluence of media scares and communication technologies, and an understanding of the nature of Internet risks and fears. Second, we present findings from a content analysis of newspaper coverage of families and the Internet, and a survey on current perceptions of the risks associated with an unfettered Web. Third, we then present new findings from our content analysis of the pages found in a popular search engine’s database, contrasting the perceptions and the reality of web content. Finally, we offer some insights on reframing the policy debate in this area. A Brief History of Fear and Censorship Government and public fear about harmful Internet content, and the ensuing urge to censor such material, is nothing new. Rather, it is just the most recent manifestation of an age-old debate. Since the origin of the spoken word, communities and governments have feared the potentially corrupting influence of all new media. As Wartella and Reeves note, “With the development of each modern means of storytelling—books, Risk and the Internet 5 newspapers, movies, radio, comics, and television—social debates regarding their effects have recurred. A prominent theme in all these debates has been a concern with media's impact on youth (1985, p. 119). Perhaps the first policy maker to focus on the dangers of media content was Plato who, some 2,000 years ago, called for extensive censorship to protect the education of children, the morals of citizens, and to generally achieve a good and just society (Wolfson 1997, p. 23). Indeed, in Plato's The Republic, he notes, “Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and . . . reject the bad” (1977). Plato goes on to argue for the censorship of playwrights, poets, and music. Warning of the influence of storytellers, Plato comments: Children cannot distinguish between what is allegory and what isn't, and opinions formed at that age are usually difficult to eradicate or change; it is therefore of the utmost importance that the first stories they hear shall aim at producing the right moral effect. (1977) Based on these arguments Plato even called for the censorship of Homer. While Plato and the Greeks merely had to worry about spoken stories and a few written manuscripts, the invention of the printing press around 1450, confronted the Catholic Church and European rulers with a truly revolutionary medium, capable of eliminating their long held monopoly over the dissemination of ideas. The printing press and Luther disintermediated the Catholic priest and laid the seeds for mass literacy, and mass political and religious dissent (Grendler, 1984; Eisenstein, 1980). Clearly the printed word was to be feared and, therefore, censored by the prevailing authorities. Risk and the Internet 6 Responding to this new technology of freedom, the Church developed one of the most comprehensive and long lasting censorship regimes in human history. In 1524, under Church guidance, Charles V of Belgium published a list of censored books. Forty years later in 1564, the Church formalized the listing of banned books by publishing the Index librorum prohibitum (Index of Prohibited Books). The Index consisted of several parts: 1. a listing of outright banned authors, 2. a listing of banned titles, 3. rules for expurgation of books with some “error,” but which were not all bad, and 4. sweeping rules for the dissemination of printed works (Grendler 1984, p. 30). Generally speaking, the Index focused on doctrinal error, but it also included immoral and obscene works. This concern with the corrupting influence of content, once again seen as particularly dangerous for children, is reflected in rule number eight of the original Index: Books which professedly deal with, narrate or teach things lascivious or obscene are absolutely prohibited, since not only the matter of faith but also that of morals, which are usually easily corrupted through the reading of such books, must be taken into consideration, and those who possess them are to be severely punished by the bishops. Ancient books written by heathens may by reason of their elegance and quality of style be permitted, but may by no means be read to children. (Modern History Sourcebook, 1999) Risk and the Internet 7 Updated and published every fifty years until 1966, the Index, is a strong testament to the fear and regulation of media content. In the 19th century, the rise of mass literacy and the penny press again focused government attention on the problem of dangerous and corrupting material. In England, the infamous Thomas Bowdler took up the cause. In 1802 he helped found the Society for the Suppression of Vice, whose goal was “To prevent the profanation of the Lord's Day, prosecute blasphemous publications, bring the trade in obscene books to a halt, close disorderly houses and suppress fortune tellers” (in St. John-Stevas, 1962, p. 104). From 1802 to 1807, the Society successfully prosecuted between thirty and forty obscenity cases (Tedford, 1993, p. 13). In addition to his legal crusading, Bowdler authored The Family Shakespeare, “bowdlerized” to exclude profanity, indecency, and blasphemy (Hoyt, 1970, p. 21). The U.S. had a similar 19th century morality crusader in Anthony Comstock. In 1872 Comstock founded the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, whose stategiven mandate was to suppress “obscene literature” including “vile weekly newspapers” and “licentious books” (Hoyt, 1970, p. 22). One year after founding the New York Society, he lobbied Congress to pass federal legislation outlawing the sending of “obscene or crime-inciting matter” through the mails. Prohibited material, under what became known as the Comstock Law, included, “every obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character” not to mention any material regarding contraception or abortion (Hoyt, 1970, p. 23). Comstock would go on to destroy countless “obscene” works as a special agent of the Post Office. Risk and the Internet 8 The spirit of Comstock's moral crusading continued well into the 20th century, where new groups like the National Organization for Decent Literature (founded in 1955) and The Citizens for Decent Literature (1956) gained widespread support. New types of media, including pulp-fiction magazines, comics, and films, all came under the scrutiny of such organizations. For example, speaking to the dangers of film, the Christian Century (1930) noted: Movies are so occupied with crime and sex stuff and are so saturating the minds of children the world over with social sewage that they have become a menace to the mental and moral life of the coming generation (cited in Starker, 1989, p. 8) Pornography Drives Technology—Which Drives Censorship. Since the invention of the printing press, pornography has been a driving force behind the development of new media, which as a result has lead to efforts to censor all new media. Two of the most popular books produced by Gutenberg's new invention were the pornographic tales of Pietro Aretino's Postures (1524) and the satiric Gargantua and Pantagruel of François Rabelais (1530-40). Postures consisted of a series of engravings depicting various sexual positions; each accompanied by a ribald sonnet. Rabelais' work was more satirical, including passages such as a playful governess introducing Gargantua to sex; Gargantua's horse pissing away an army, and a woman scaring away the devil by exposing her vagina (Kendrick, 1987; Findland, 1993). Pornography next played an essential role in the development of the paperback book. In the late 19th century, printers began publishing magazines made of cheap “pulp” paper, thus the term “pulp fiction.” One of the most popular genres of the paperback was Risk and the Internet 9 pornography and erotica, a tradition that continues to this day, with cheap, cheesecake novels sold in the local supermarket (Johnson, 1996). In the 19th century, pornography also accompanied the development of photography. Civil War soldiers sought more than just letters from home. Through the mails they also received large quantities of pornographic photographs. The traffic in such images was so great that Congress passed the nation's first law prohibiting the sending of obscenity through the mails. However, by the time the bill passed in 1865 the war was over, and soldiers returned home with pornography in their pockets (Johnson, 1996). Several more modern media of communication can also attribute pornography as a contributing factor to their success. Pay per-view cable television's first lucrative use was broadcasting X-rated films. Videotaped pornography helped drive the nascent market for video cassette players and rented videos. Pornography also helped prove the market for “900” phone services, and CD-ROMs (Johnson, 1996). Pornography's integral role in the development of most modern media is likely attributable to two factors. First, put simply, humans enjoy sex. Secondly, entrepreneurs recognize this fact, and will use any medium open to them to distribute pornographic content to an eager consuming public. The Internet merely represents the culmination of this trend, providing commercial pornographers with a distribution technology capable of reaching a vast international market. How eager is the public for such material? In 1998, Americans spent $1 billion on Internet pornography and $5 billion renting pornographic videos. Globally, legal pornography is estimated to be a $56 billion industry (Morais, 1999). Risk and the Internet 10 Fear, Cyberporn, and the March to Censor the Web. Based on our historical fear and regulation of all forms of media content, it should be of no surprise that our newest medium, the Web, has been similarly attacked as an “evil influence,” poised to “contaminate the health and character of the nation's children” (Starker, 1989, p. 5). The moral danger inherent in the Internet has been defined as the easy availability of pornography, hate speech, and violence. In the U.S., and many other nations, this fear has inevitably led to calls for government regulation. We thus outline U.S. and Canadian experiences with, and responses to, the perceived dangers of Web content. The U.S. Experience. On July 3, 1995, Time magazine carried the following cover article: “On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn.” The article, by Time senior writer Phillip Elmer-Dewitt, cited the soon to be published research of a Carnegie Mellon undergraduate student named Marty Rimm (Wallace and Mangan, 1996). Rimm's study, eventually published in the Georgetown Law Review, claimed to be an exhaustive look at the amount and types of pornography available on the Internet. Rimm found that 83.5% of Usenet images were pornographic, and that over 70% of the sexual images on the newsgroups surveyed “originate from adult-oriented computer bulletin-board systems (BBS) whose operators are trying to lure customers to their private collections of X-rated material” (ElmerDewitt, 1995). Further, he found that many of the images analyzed were exceptionally kinky and violent. Following the publication of the Time article and the actual Rimm study, many Internet analysts came forward to discredit Rimm's analysis. Taking the forefront in Risk and the Internet 11 pointing out the study’s weaknesses were Vanderbilt University professors Donna Hoffman and Tom Novak. They argued that Rimm's selection of a few sex related newsgroups was simply not representative of the world of Usenet, or of the larger Internet. “Also, no information is provided on the degree to which these 32 newsgroups comprise the complete universe of Usenet imagery” (Hoffman and Novak, 1995). In addition to his non-representative sample of newsgroups (of which there are thousands mostly relating to news, recreation, and politics), Rimm used no clear definition of pornography to classify images as pornographic. The onslaught of articles, email, and Usenet posts discrediting the Rimm study led Time to “admit that grievous errors had slipped past their editorial staff, as their normally thorough research succumbed to a combination of deadline pressure and exclusivity agreements that barred them from showing the unpublished study to possible critics” (Wilkins, 1997). While for all intents and purposes the Rimm study had been discredited—shown to be a methodologically weak study conducted by an attention seeking undergraduate student—a heightened sense of the moral dangers of the Internet endured. In spite of this discrediting, the Time article and the Rimm study stirred a wild moral panic about access to pornography on the Internet. In the months that followed, several mainstream newspapers and magazines including the New York Times, USA Today, and Newsweek ran stories regarding the “threat” of Internet content. Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) lawyer Mike Goodwin referred to this situation as “The Great Cyberporn Panic of 1995” (1998, p. 206). Several U.S. Senators and Congressmen soon weighed in with legislation to protect children from the scourge of easily accessed Risk and the Internet 12 Internet pornography. As Margaret Seif notes, “the political football got blown up to gigantic proportions” (1997). Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed the Protection of Children from Pornography Act of 1995. In support of his bill, Grassley introduced the entire Time article into the Congressional Record, and referred to Rimm's undergraduate research as “a remarkable study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University” (Wilkins, 1997). Grassley further noted that there is a “flood of vile pornography, and we must act to stem this growing tide” (June 26, 1995). Grassley's bill did not pass, but it led to several Internet censorship bills, culminating in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) sponsored by former Senator James Exon. The bill was attached to the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in February 1996. Following passage of the CDA, two polls found widespread support for government regulation of the Internet. An October 1996 survey by the Los Angeles Times found that 56% of respondents favored “a law that would make it illegal for a computer network to carry pornographic or adult material” (Harmon, 1996). Similarly, a May 1997 ABC News poll found that 80% of respondents favored government restrictions on Internet pornography (Richtel, 1997). Despite Congressional and public support, on June 26, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Reno v. ACLU, that the CDA was an unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment freedoms. Disappointed with this outcome, and boosted by polls supporting Internet regulation, one year later in October 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), another attempt at limiting minors access to Risk and the Internet 13 adult speech on the Internet (Nickell, 1998). Most recently in 1999, Congress has debated similar measures requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to distribute Internet filtering software (Bloomberg, 1999), and to require public schools and libraries to install such programs (McCain, 1999). The Canadian Experience. Concurrent with battles in the U.S., Canada has experienced a very similar development of public concern over the perceived dangers of the Internet. Just as in the U.S., newspaper coverage of “hot button” issues, particularly child pornography and online hate speech, have led many Canadians to wonder if government regulation is needed (Jones in The St. Catharines Standard Press, 1998). For example, a 1997 CitizenGlobal poll of adult Canadians found that 66% favored government regulation of the Internet (Cobb, 1997). Similarly, a 1998 poll, by Ekos Research Associates, found that “two thirds of Canadians felt that the government should control or regulate the publication of abusive content and pornography on the Internet” (Globe and Mail, 1998). Likely due to such support, in July 1998 MP Chris Axworth (NDP-Saskatoon) introduced Bill C-424, the Internet Child Pornography Prevention Act, before the Canadian House of Commons. The bill called for the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to license ISPs, who would be required to block access to Internet sites where child pornography could be found (Campbell 1998). In response to Axworth's proposal, the CRTC conducted a public review, but in May 1999 concluded “that any attempt to regulate Canadian new media might put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace” (CRTC, 1999). Risk and the Internet 14 As with the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the CDA, the CRTC has put a damper on legislative attempts at Internet regulation. However, in light of continued public support, and a growing debate over library and school Web filtering, Canadians will likely see further attempts to regulate online content.