article critique

1

SAMPLE CRITIQUE

IN RESPONSE TO

“COMPUTER CONTENT SHOULD NOT BE CENSORED”

How Big a Threat is the Communications Decency Act?

[Introduction – summary of article and its arguments]

A.In the article, “Computer Content Should not be Censored,” Marc Rotenberg argues that censorship of the Internet, in the form of the Exon-Coats Communications Decenct Act, gives the government license to censor almost anything. He portrays the act as a threat to freedom of speech and predicts that it will lead to trivial, capricious acts of censorship. He argues that we should decide for ourselves what’s offensive and what’s not; we should not let the government decide for us.

B.Rotenberg refutes three arguments offered by supporters of the act. To the claim that “it’s nothing more than old-fashioned regulation of the TV and radio,” Rotenberg counters that the Internet is not like radio and TV, because website operators are not licensed. To the claim that the act “will protect children from the evils of dirty pictures,” Rotenberg responds that children “aren’t interested in dirty pictures” and that parents, not the government, should regulate what their children see. To the supporters’ claim that “they don’t intend to eliminate the acceptable stuff, just the bad stuff,” Rotenberg counters that “that’s exactly the problem the First Amendment was designed to avoid.”

[The writer’s thesis about the article – his/her overall comment]

Rotenberg makes several persuasive points showing that the Exon-Coats Communications Decenct Act is a threat to free speech. However, in his zeal to prove his case, he overstates the seriousness of the threat.

[Points of agreement with the article]

C. Rotenberg begins his argument with some examples, all of them ridiculous, of governments’ attempts to censor sex on the Internet. Though we can’t forget that there are plenty of hardcore pornography sites out there, Rotenberg paints a rather chilling picture when he describes how Bavarian prosecutors censored the Patrick Stewart website, because its address was alt.sexy.bald.captains. When such innocent websites are blanked out because of sweeping government policies, free speech is truly in jeopardy.

D. Rotenberg’s refutations of the act’s supporters are for the most part persuasive. He is correct that the Internet is not like the radio or TV and cannot be regulated in the same way. Though I think it’s debatable whether or not young children are not interested in dirty pictures (how young are these children we are talking about, anyway?), he is right that the act of forbidding something makes it all the more enticing and all the more available. He is also correct that the First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from distinguishing “the acceptable stuff” from the “bad stuff” for its citizens. They must be allowed to make their own decisions about what’s acceptable over the Internet, just as they make choices when they vote, or even when they decide what to watch on TV.

[Points of disagreement with the article]

I agree with Rotenberg’s position, but I’m not entirely pleased with the way he presents it. His presentation is almost hysterical, even though it is written in prose that sounds for the most part calm and reasonable.

E. First of all, it is difficult to assess the seriousness of the threat, because Rotenberg does not quote any of the language of the Decency Act or provide any details of what it says. The closest he comes to a factual description is the statement, “The legislation gives federal investigators the right to comb through websites, newsgroup posts and even private electronic mail to find evidence of indecent speech.”. But that, too, is an interpretation, not a factual description. We have only his word for it that the Act actually allows the government to tell people “what they should read, think or believe.”

F. Rotenberg uses example from foreign countries, whose constitutions may or may not guarantee the same rights as ours does (certainly not China or Singapore). The only example from the United States is a hypothetical one, about how Vance Packard’s “The Naked Societyé” could be taken off the Internet just because of its title. Just because a similar thing did happen Bavaria, that does not mean a similar order here could be carried out.

G. Rotenberg uses a slippery slope argument, stating that the government might not stop at censoring the Internet for “decency.” He argues that it could use the act as a license to snoop into every nook and cranny of the Internet, even private e-mail. “Be careful when people tell you which words you can speak and which books you can read. Once they start drawing lines, they rarely stop.” This dire warning seems far-fetched , because Rotenberg doesn’t cite any compelling evidence that such things will happen (once again I wish Rotenberg had given us the language of the act itself).

H. The idea that federal investigators are going to search websites looking for forbidden words also seems far-fetched (paragraph 12). “Use a word that someone doesn’t like, and you could get thrown in jail.” Here Rotenberg is using a scare tactic that seems to have little credibility.

J. Another slippery slope argument, hinted at but not fully stated , is that when governments start censoring the Internet, the effect will accumulate worldwide: “If each country imposes a filter on information, there may be little content left.” Rotenberg gives no indication as to how censorship could cross international boundaries in the way he suggests.

[Conclusion]

We need a healthy national debate on control and regulation of the Internet. Hopefully articles like Rotenberg’s will help further that debate. But I hope that not all participants in that debate will be as near-hysterical as Rotenberg in predicting the dire consequences of either regulating or not regulating the Internet.

This critique employs approaches detailed in the following publication:

Bean, J. & Ramage, J. (2000). The Allyn and Bacon guide to Writing, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

UNI123 – Textual Analysis – Article Critique – Sample Critique