Due to the fact that the sovereign power lies within the people themselves, a democratic system relies upon the acquisition of knowledge within the polity. That is, the people themselves must reserve the means by which to exchange information, thereby educating themselves concerning the pertinent issues of governance. It is this power of free speech that allows the people to remain sovereign, for it is the acquisition of this knowledge that enables them to ultimately govern themselves. Not only does this ensure the existence of democracy; by reserving this power to the people, the polity is able, through the means of selfÐgovernance, to limit the power of the state, preserving liberty itself.
If the government were to assume control over this free market of speech Ñ through any act of influence or outright censorship Ñ the freedom of the people would fall into jeopardy. This is due to the fact that such a governmental act would hinder the free exchange of ideas, ultimately diluting and possibly usurping the sovereignty of the people. Thus, for the sake of liberty itself, it is essential that a free market of speech exist.
Citing its versatile and universal utility, many have hailed the development of the Internet as a blessing to democratic governance. Indeed, the benefits that such a system brings to a democratic society are both significant and numerous. The Internet allows for an easy and efficient exchange of information, making the acquisition of knowledge as easy as ever. This, in turn, has contributed to the maintenance of American democracy, allowing more people to educate themselves on current issues.
The recent Internet Decency Act, however, hinders this exchange of information over the Internet. The legislation grants to the government the power to regulate the content of the information transmitted via computer. Specifically, the act prohibits the transmission of material deemed "indecent" or "obscene," in an effort to stem the effects that pornography may have on various segments of society, especially children. In passing this bill, Congress purports to serve the public interest, upholding community standards of speech on the Internet.
By upholding such "standards," though, Congress has assumed the power to censor a type of speech Ñ namely, speech that may offend through obscenity or indecency. As discussed earlier, the right of free speech is essential to democratic liberty, for this right reserves the power of governing to the people. Thus, the efforts of Congress to censor the Internet infringe upon the peopleÕs right to govern themselves: By prohibiting a type of speech on a growing public forum, Congress has impeded the ability of the people to communicate and, ultimately, function responsibly in a democracy.
In response to this conclusion, some may assert that the indecent material that is the subject of the law under question holds no relevancy to democratic speech. That is, even with the enactment of this act, people will still possess the power to acquire the knowledge necessary for the maintenance of democracy. Such may indeed be the case, but this submission fails to consider a more fundamental point: If they were to condone this action on the part of the state, the people would implicitly legitimize governmental influence over the free market of speech. It is this free market that allows for democratic speech to exist in the first place, and thus the people must protect it.
While claiming to uphold the values of the Constitution upon their inauguration, members of Congress have clearly violated the First AmendmentÕs guarantee of the right of free speech with the passage of the Internet Decency Act. They not only have hindered the further development of a promising new form of communication, but have also place into jeopardy the democratic liberty of the American polity. It would be proper for the federal courts, or the legislators themselves, to declare this act unconstitutional, restoring the freedom of speech that once characterized the Internet.