Netting the Net's purveyors of porn

A landmark litigation in defence of freedom of expression in cyberspace will come to a head this Friday, when a federal court in Philadelphia is to hear the concluding remarks from both the plantiffs and the US Justice Department. In the words of the popular Wired computer magazine, 'what is at stake is nothing less than the survival of free speech in the 21st century'. A so-called 'blue ribbon' worldwide campaign has snowballed ever since US President Bill Clinton signed a telecommunications reform bill into law on February 8. The new legislation is meant to protect persons under the age of 18 from exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet. Under the Communications Decency Act, it is a felony to send or display 'patently offensive' materials through interactive computer services to minors. A violation of the provision may result in a fine of up to US$250,000 (HK$1.9 million) or two years' imprisonment. The Hong Kong authorities are facing similar regulatory issues, and officials are keeping an eye on the US legal proceedings. A coalition of concerned groups are convinced that the US Government's approach cannot achieve the declared purpose of the law - to protect minors. The Internet, they assert, simply defies national borders. Dubious content providers, they point out, can easily shift their operations outside the United States to avoid legal liabilities. An alliance of plaintiffs working to repeal the act includes several telecommunications and computer corporate giants, the American Library Association, American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, the Newspaper Association of America and the Society of Professional Journalists. They argue that the act is tantamount to a violation of the First Amendment, because it takes away the right of communication between adults. The coalition has tried to persuade the court that a more sensible way to protect minors is to promote the use of software programs, such as Net Nanny, to help parents decide what their children should be allowed to access. US Attorney-General Janet Reno has agreed not to enforce the law, pending a final decision by the three-judge panel in Philadelphia. Like the US Congress, the Hong Kong Legislative Council appears to be more concerned about children accessing pornographic materials on the Internet, rather than focusing on the bigger issue of how to help more people benefit from the healthier contents available on the information superhighway. Individual councillors have already filed questions about how to control undesirable materials on the Net at their meetings. Last June, a man was arrested for posting child pornography on a bulletin board which he had downloaded from the Internet. After being held on bail for 10 months, the Attorney-General's Chamber last week decided that they did not have a reasonable case to indict the man. Officials used to maintain that existing laws, such as the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, were adequate to ban excessive pornography on the Net. The ordinance carries a fine of up to HK$1 million or three years in prison. Since the man walked free, questions have been raised again about how the Internet should be controlled. Deputy Secretary for Recreation and Culture, Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan, was quoted in the South China Morning Post last week as saying that a working party had been set up to study whether there were legal loopholes which needed to be plugged. Meanwhile, concerned local groups are stepping up pressure to denounce a web site based in Hong Kong which has claimed itself to be 'the largest adult enterprise in Asia'. The company has advertised on the Internet a 'one night-stand club' service, which some concerned groups regard as nothing more than a prostitution ring. Both males and females aged over 16 are welcome to register. Female participants, however, are entitled to ask for a fee of up to US$500 for dress and transportation. The operator claims that its services are covered in 'major cities in Asia and also Sydney and Brisbane'. For a fee of US$40, the company further offers to deliver 1,000 pictures of nude Asian girls every month via the Internet. The samples it gave would definitely be classified as obscene and it would thus be illegal to publish or distribute them through conventional means. Some concerned citizens, under the banner of the St Mary's Church, have been urging Internet users to boycott the site. But apart from that, they are not sure what else they can do. The ruling of the three judges on the Philadelphia bench will provide some guidance on how a balance may be achieved between pornographic abuses on the one hand, and free speech on the other, in the most powerful modern medium of communication.