106. The overwhelming majority of content on the Internet is non-sexual in nature, and is not even arguably "indecent" or "patently offensive," even for minors. However, a significant amount of the content on the Internet could arguably be deemed "indecent" or "patently offensive" for minors in some communities, and the Act bans or burdens all of that content.

107. Although imposing extreme burdens on the Internet, the Act will in fact have very little impact on the availability to persons under 18 of "indecent" or "patently offensive" images or communications on the Internet. At least in part because Congress held no hearings on the Act, did not collect information about how the Internet works, and only haphazardly reviewed the content on the Internet, the Act does not accomplish or even significantly further the ostensible goal of limiting access by persons under 18 to "indecent" or "patently offensive" images. There are at least two reasons why implementation of the Act will be highly ineffective as a limitation on such access.

108. First, a high percentage of sexual content on the Internet originates outside of the United States, and it is not possible to prevent that content from being "available" in the United States. To the extent the Act imposes any burdens on domestic commercial providers of such communications, those providers will have the option of moving their operations overseas.

109. Second, the existence of "anonymous remailers" means that any content -- indecent or otherwise -- can be placed onto the Internet anonymously, and the government would be unable to identify the content provider. Anonymous remailer systems -- which often are located overseas -- will automatically receive a communication and forward it to a destination after having removed all trace of the origin of the communication.

110. At bottom, therefore, the Act does little to limit the ability of commercial or non-commercial entities to provide "indecent" or "patently offensive" images on the Internet.

111. A critical difference between the Act's attempt to regulate indecency on the Internet and prior governmental attempts to regulate indecency (over radio, television, and telephone sex lines, for example) is that there are tens of millions of speakers on the Internet, with no bottleneck through which all of the speech must pass.

112. There are alternative means that are far more effective in limiting a minor's access to "indecent" or "patently offensive" communications. The only place where it is practically possible to screen out commercial indecency, non- commercial indecency, domestic indecency, overseas indecency, intentional indecency, inadvertent indecency, and anonymous indecency is in the computer that is attempting to receive the speech.

113. The government's legitimate interest in aiding parental control over the Internet material their children access may be served by several means that are both less restrictive and more effective than a blanket ban on "indecent" or "patently offensive" communications. Parents have control over their children's access to communications through interactive computer services. For example, parents can deny their child access to the computer; parents can supervise their child's use of interactive computer services; parents can decline to subscribe to interactive computer services until their child is older; parents can take advantage of the free screening and blocking options available at no extra charge from commercial online services; and parents can obtain software (some of it free, and most of it for a very modest cost) for their home computers to screen material they find objectionable.

114. Commercial online services such as America Online, CompuServe, the Microsoft Network, and Prodigy offer technologies that allow parents to block their children's access to certain online forums and areas where children might be exposed to inappropriate content. These online services, for example, include a feature that allows parents to prevent their children from accessing interactive discussion forums (chat rooms). They also offer parents the ability to block access to all or portions of the Internet, including the World Wide Web and USENET newsgroups, based on keywords, subject matter, or specific newsgroups. These tools can be configured to block access to groups based on any keyword.

115. In addition, a variety of software providers have developed applications to use in conjunction with commercial online services, over and above the parental control features provided by commercial services, while others are designed specifically for direct access. SurfWatch, for example, allows parents to block their child's access to USENET newsgroups, World Wide Web, gopher, and ftp sites with sexually explicit content. When activated with a private password held only by a parent, SurfWatch completely prevents any user from accessing these areas. The service automatically updates the list of blocked sites, without any intervention required from the user. NET NANNY, another example, contains a dictionary in which the parent can enter the names of sites that contain sexually explicit or other material. Parents may also enter phrases which if transmitted or received will automatically disconnect the network. Among other things, the program also keeps a log of all activity that occurs on the computer, allowing parents to monitor their children's use of the computer.

116. Products such as the Netscape Proxy Server and WEBTrack provide schools and businesses the ability to block specific sites from access by all users on the network, and to track and monitor use of the Internet.

117. Because the Internet is a global network with millions of users, speaker-based content restrictions cannot effectively control the availability of materials inappropriate for children. The only effective way to protect children from inappropriate material on the Internet is to encourage the continued development and deployment of user-based tools that empower parents to control their children's online activities based on the parents' views of what is appropriate for their children. The products described here, and others like them, provide parents these tools, and can do so without the need for criminalizing or banning the distribution to adults of constitutionally protected communications.