Let­ting the Inter­net indus­try do what­ever it wants, is not the answer. The respon­si­bil­ity for deliv­er­ing a safe, law­ful alter­na­tive must be placed on the providers of the Inter­net, not on the vic­tims of unwanted Inter­net obscen­ity. In every other indus­try (food, drugs, auto­mo­biles, toys, etc.) com­pa­nies are required to pro­vide prod­ucts and ser­vices in com­pli­ance with fed­eral law—why not the Inter­net industry?

The Inter­net was cre­ated by government-sponsored ini­tia­tives paid for by cit­i­zens of the United States. Yet there is no safe, gen­eral com­mu­nity Inter­net alter­na­tive for the mil­lions of cit­i­zens in the United States who want one. An atti­tu­di­nal poll con­ducted by Com­mon Sense Media in June 2006, showed that 85% of par­ents believe that the Inter­net posed the great­est risk to their chil­dren among all forms of media. If this were an issue of toys and the law said that toys should come with­out high lev­els of lead (which it does), would it be too much to ask that com­pa­nies be required to offer alter­na­tive toys with­out those lev­els of lead? Any­thing less would seem highly irre­spon­si­ble. Like­wise, it seems irre­spon­si­ble that ISPs in our coun­try are not required to offer a gen­eral com­mu­nity Inter­net ser­vice that is in com­pli­ance with fed­eral obscen­ity laws.

If we don’t stand up for the well-being of our chil­dren and grand­chil­dren, who will?