The New Gay » Free Internet… At What Cost?

Free Internet… At What Cost?

30 May 2008, 7:45 pm No Comments

This post was submitted by Chris, who wonders if queer girls can have boyfriends.

This morning Reuters reported that the FCC is proposing auctioning off a part of the wireless spectrum under the condition that the winner provide free internet that blocks “obscene content.” Reuters quotes FCC spokesman Rob Kenny as saying, “because this will provide wireless broadband services to more Americans, it is certainly something we want to see.”

Free internet would make almost anyone happy… but what qualifies as obscene? Would TNG be blocked due its occasional posting of NSFW (not safe for work) content? What about other GLBT sites, feminist sites, online sex toy stores?

If the FCC succeeds in creating an “obscenity”-free internet community, what impact will that have on adult queer culture? Will some sites start censoring themselves in order to prevent from being blocked, or sequester questionable content to a certain part of their site?

And what about the children? Yes, sure, most people would agree that an eleven-year-old child doesn’t need to see hardcore sex videos. But the internet is a lifeline to young queer or questioning girls and boys. What about that kid who’s looking for evidence that he’s not crazy in liking other boys? And what about teenagers, gay or straight, looking for information about condoms? What, exactly, will be blocked as “obscene content”?

The gay community has only recently begun to straddle the line of what is considered normal and what is considered unseemly. Before Lawrence v. Texas in ~~2000~~ 2003, plenty of states had laws on the books that classified our “lifestyles” as obscene. We only recently had the first instance of two men kissing on public television. If the internet is cleaned up now by FCC regulators, will parts of our community be cleaned out of it? What will this mean for us?

Reuters mentions at the end of the article that “The 25 MHz spectrum at issue is not viewed as highly attractive to wireless carriers, unlike the 700 MHz spectrum auctioned by the FCC earlier this year.” So, it’s possible that this latest proposal will not generate much interest. I hope that’s the case, but if not, I think we should all watch this closely…

No Comment »

DLC said:

No cause for concern my dear Chris.
Obscenity is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment (nor is child pornography). Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). So the government can put this kind of limitation on the sale of the bandwidth. Nonetheless, the types of material which you are concerned about are not considered obscene.

Obscene material is determined by “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

That means that most things that have any kind of value are going to be ok, because to lack any value mentioned above it would have to be some pretty dumb stuff. If you have a doubt about it come over and I’ll show you a take-off on the Pirates of the Caribbean that will make it crystal-clear.

Whether websites will begin self-censoring to be allowed on the free area is another story, but for now, legally, there is no cause for alarm (imho). For more info check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography

30 May 2008 at 8:29 pm

DLC said:

30 May 2008 at 8:29 pm

Andrew Pendleton said:

Not to nitpick, but the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, in 2003.

31 May 2008 at 12:52 am

Chris said:

Andrew, thanks for catching that!

2 June 2008 at 6:02 pm