The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, the terms necessary for a democratic society, and the Internet has the potential to provide many people in any society is an open forum to express their concerns and reach a wide audience. Pornography and other graphic material existed before the Internet, but the ability of wide range of this technology have made this material more accessible and intrusive.One problem faced by both the U.S. Congress, and the court is defining the terms obscene and indecent. Because the First Amendment does not protect obscene material, but not to protect the indecent material, making a distinction between the two is important. The Supreme Court has constructed test for obscenity in Roth v. cases United States (1957) and Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966). The current standards for obscenity were defined in case Miller v. California Supreme Court (1973). Miller (1973) proposed the test by Roth (1957) and Memories (1966) together to create a three-part test be used in evaluating alleged obscene material. Five judges supported the view that rewrote the rules obscenity. They said that before the government can prosecute someone for the handling of obscene materials, the government must first determine "whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the interests obscene ... . (Miller v. California, 1973). "Measuring" contemporary community standards "presents a problem, especially online. Different communities have different standards for the labeling of obscenity, therefore, because someone can use the Internet to reach more communities, Community standards apply to the recipient. The people who distribute materials at the national level the use of the Internet could be sued in any state in which the material is accessible (Rose, 1995). By requiring the work to be undertaken as a whole, the court gave some leeway to work that may include only a small amount of material that could be considered obscene (Rose, 1995). The second part (1973) Miller obscenity test determines "whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law ...." State laws determine whether the material is obscene, and this section of the test is easier for the government to prove (Rose, 1995). The final part of the (1973) judges Miller test "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary value, artistic, political or scientific." That approach has given value to the materials saved many potentially obscene materials by complaint, because there is no clear standard for determining the value (Rose, 1995). Although the courts have ruled that freedom of the Internet has the most similar to the First Amendment freedoms given to print media than those established for the broadcast media, the debate continues on how to adjust the material objectionable, offensive and obscene. Congress sought to regulate the materials in line with the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was adopted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Parts of the CDA prohibited the "knowing transmission" of "obscene or indecent" (47 USCS 223 (a)) notices under 18 or to display in any place accessible to a child. The Board has determined that any communication that "in context, describes or represents, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of this service Originally the call or initiated the communication (47 USCS 223 (d) (1) (B)). "Criminal charges of a prison sentence order, or both were attached to the violation of this law. (Communications Decency Act), the plaintiffs submitted in the course of these suits two clauses of the CDA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Reno v. ACLU, 1997) At the end of the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States by then Attorney General Janet Reno's highest court decided the case, and became a defining point in First Amendment freedoms available online . In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) the Supreme Court decided the two clauses of the CDA that regulate the transmission of obscene materials to minors was unconstitutional because it was overbroad. An opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by six judges said that parts of the CDA "abridged freedom of speech protected by the Federal Constitution, the First Amendment ... (Reno v. ACLU, 1997) "The judges have given the reason for the restrictions on the speech made by CDA were" content-based "rather than" rules of the time, place and manner of speaking. " Even in their opinion, the judges did not consider the Internet to the same level of First Amendment scrutiny that is applied to the transmission media. The decision was a success for individuals and public interest groups that challenged the CDA. E 'was also a victory for all those who want to publish on-line work because the decision of the judges' wider application of the First Amendment rights to the internet that looked like the rights that the print media. The strict control applied to the means of transmission was not applicable to the Internet (Creech, 2003). Cases are referred Justice, as the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) to explain the intense government regulation of broadcast media because of the "scarcity of available frequencies at its inception (Reno v. ACLU, 1997) and to explain that the" lack "control should not be applied Internet.Another reason the Court held the CDA unconstitutional was its vague definitions of "indecent" and "patently offensive (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). "Because a criminal law was used to deter violators, the court decided that raised" special first amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on freedom of speech (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). " ; In 2000, Congress again sought to regulate obscene materials, especially those accessible to children, with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law requires public schools and public libraries to filter out inappropriate Web sites, in order to receive federal funding for Internet access. The provisions became problematic for libraries: Libraries with more than one computer on the Internet by accessing the order to be eligible to receive universal service support ... a library that has more than one computer with Internet access for use by the public (including children) certify to the Commission, which has installed and uses a technology to filter or block material deemed harmful to minors on one or most of its computers with Internet access (S. Res. 97, 2000). The American Library Association challenged the bill, fearing the CIPA requirement to install filtering software on computers that are accessible via the Internet would force libraries to the first limit patrons' Amendment freedom of access to information. The case, United State v. American Library Association (2003), reached a lower court where a panel of three judges ruled that CIPA violated the First Amendment. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed, and the judge ruled that the library provisions of CIPA were not unconstitutional.Four judges joined the opinion that CIPA was a valid use of the spending by Congress for several reasons. They argued that "Internet access in public libraries was neither a 'traditional' nor a 'designated' public forum (ALA v. U.S., 2003)." Without the distinction of a public forum, internet access through public libraries has been given little First Amendment freedoms. Judges also explained that "heightened judicial review, did not inhibit the ability of a library board to decide the content of collections.Because Internet filters may be turned off, the judges concluded there was no reason it would be an access filter" 'overblock' to constitutionally protected speech. " Congress could limit the Internet because federal aid library boards had not included pornography in their collections as usual. Finally, the judges concluded that "filtering software did not infringe their first patrons' rights amendment." Obscenity law and censorship of online forums will continue to develop as technology advances. Although the Internet gets first amendment protections similar to printed paper, the decisions appear to be conservative in cases like that of United States v. ALA (2000), which deal with obscene or indecent. The Miller test, a result of Miller v. California (1973), liberalized the definition of obscenity with its corresponding value, but the Supreme Court to finally get to review and create a Miller obscenity test for another generation.
