Here's What We Think:

Emma Taylor, staff writer:
Though we are a long way from fulfilling Newt's call for a laptop in every lap, the Internet already has a certain levelling influence. A student's Web site in support of Twinkies has a voice in the same way that McDonalds, or the FBI, or Yahoo has a voice. Information, from the trivial to the life-changing, is available to the everyman. Once someone has the authority to play with that, the democratic element is removed. I don't want little kids checking out hardcore cyberporn, but there is software that can block that. Software that we can choose to turn on or off. There is no need for blanket censorship that will prevent a teenager from using the Web to learn about safe sex.

Brian Hecht, editor-in-chief:
Everyone loves a call to arms -- and the more loathesome the offense, the sweeter the response. The offense here is pretty foul. Congress has gone and done something really neanderthal -- acting on the worst combination of misinformation, fear, cowardice, and opportunism. A bunch of smart folks like us are trying to email our way back up the slippery slope, trotting out all the old Jeffersonian saws, invoking the muses of Salinger and Sam Clemens. We in "the biz" surely understand how profoundly backward this legislation is, and because it's our "biz," we're trying to do something about it. Maybe we'll strike the right combination of resonance and indignation and they'll repeal the damn thing. What then?

...I can't help but wonder what the Federal Budget would look like if millions of moms receiving welfare checks were checking their email every morning -- just like us -- and had lots of spare time to respond to a similar call to arms. The pols in DC and state capitals make decisions every single day about issues they know nothing about. Should it come as any surprise that, sooner or later, they would step on some toes in cyberspace?

Sure, let's muster up our resources to win one for TJ and the future of democracy. But tomorrow, some other issue on the legislative agenda will receive equally uninformed treatment -- what might be at stake is not my right to download dirty gifs but shelter for a homeless family, or medical care for a disabled child. You don't need to be righteous or Rush-like to realize the truth that participation in a well-informed democracy is not the franchise of those with good Internet access. Let's treat this battle as what it is -- an vital and necessary step in the Electronic Revolution. But Revolutions don't just stop once they've defended the status quo. Let's win our right to be a revoltuion and then, hell, let's go revolutionize something!

Nathan Kurz, technician:
They tell us that if people are allowed to express themselves freely and uncensored within this new medium, the results would be devastating. I happen to agree. The beauty and strength of the web is that millions can speak directly, purely, and unadulterated to a national and even global audience. The powers that be are justifiably terrified by this notion, for this circumvents their control of the flow of information. Those supporting this bill are generally those whom the existing power structures benefit. They are afraid that the thousands of new voices that will be heard will dilute their messages, subvert their authority. They deserve to be devastated; I await the day.

Anthony Qaiyum, staff writer:
When I try to picture what the Net would look like in the wake of censorship legislation, any image I conjure up is too absurd to be taken seriously. A Web with "FCC approved" seals right next to the ubiquitous Point Survey seals is as intelligible to me as having a chip in my TV that can edit out violent programming -- everyone knows that would be ridiculous. Enforcing decency standards with blanket laws is wrong and will eventually fail. The Internet is complex enough that it will always find a way around these feeble attempts to corral and tame its powerful communicative possibilities. And I'm not even worried about the availability of "indecent" content, in the meantime. Wherever there is censorship, there is always an underground. With a little effort, I have no doubt that an Internet explorer of any age will still be able to obtain all manners of supposedly regulated materials. What's truly indecent is the immediate effect the legislation would have on individuals and content providers, like Tripod, who might be forced to bowdlerize their well-intentioned, often educational content, because they can't afford to put their asses on the line. I look at Contraceptive Contemplation, one of my recent Tripod projects, and wonder if we'll have to take it down in the coming months, so that computer-privileged children don't stumble upon dirty pictures while mommy is out taking the Volvo for a tune-up. The idea of dumping, or even locking up, exciting, educational, and timely content is a crime. For this reason, I urge you to contact the members of Congress involved and tell them that you staunchly oppose government censorship on the Net, or anywhere else.