Two years ago, Congress passed a controversial law to protect you from inappropriate material on the Internet. Known as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the legislation requires public libraries to install content filters on their computers. Although Internet filters are programmed to block indecent materials only, critics of CIPA complain that Web filters amount to government censorship, violating the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech.

THE GREAT EQUALIZER

The Internet has transformed society. Without leaving our chairs, we can shop, study, and socialize in a virtual world that has no boundaries. Indeed, some people have described the Internet as the great equalizer, because it ignores racial and cultural differences and unlocks economic and educational opportunities for everyone.

But not every American has easy access to the Internet. Research shows that 10 percent of the 143 million people who regularly use the Internet have access only at public libraries. Because politicians recognize the social value of the Internet, the government provides economic aid to libraries to purchase computers and to pay for Internet services. Last year, this assistance totaled more than $ 200 million dollars.

FILTERING THE FACTS

Unfortunately, the Internet's impact on society has a negative side too. For example, since 1995, the number of racist groups spreading hatred on the Web has skyrocketed, the information explosion has put explosives in the hands of dangerous criminals, and businesses peddling unsavory material have flourished. Disgusted by the amount of harmful content available online, citizens demanded that the government take action.

In response to public pressure, Congress passed two laws to restrict the flow of indecent material on the Internet. The Supreme Court, however, overturned both laws. In one case, the court said that the freedom of expression in a democracy "outweighs any theoretical, but unproven, benefit of censorship." Last June, though, the high court ruled that CIPA is constitutional.

According to the court's decision, all public libraries that receive government funds can be forced to install filters on their computers. The court explained that CIPA does not violate the First Amendment, because unlike the two previous laws, CIPA is narrowly written to protect only children from vulgar material. Libraries are allowed to turn off the filters for adults.

THE JEWISH VIEW

Jewish law respects freedom of speech, but all speech is not permitted to Jews. Similar to the American legal system, where it's unlawful to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, the Jewish legal system halachah censors harmful speech. Before resorting to censorship, both systems analyze the impact of questionable speech on society. Nonetheless, there remains a fundamental difference between the standards that each legal system uses to define what is harmful.

Judaism demands kedushah (holiness) from every person and strives to create a holy nation. Therefore, halachah's standard of acceptable speech (and behavior) is more rigorous than what is generally accepted under American law. Jewish law demands that we "not put a stumbling block before the blind." In other words, any speech that encourages others to behave in a way that diminishes the image of God within them is prohibited because it is an obstacle to holy living. According to the Jewish perspective, indecent material should never be published, and therefore filters that remove it are appropriate.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Is the standard of acceptable speech and behavior too low in American society?