No one can forget the kid who got caught checking out the “midgets and amputees” Web site in Durham hall last year. The young man was caught with his hand “in the cookie jar” so to speak when he was apprehended by a DPS officer thanks to a tip from a fellow lab user.

Maybe he didn’t mean to be looking at the Web site; it is possible that it was an accident. OK, probably not. If that was the case, then his zipper accidentally came undone as well.

Although, if it had been a mistake, I could empathize with him. No, I haven’t been caught logged onto porn online. However, after quite a few trips on the information highway, I found myself erroneously bombarded with pornography like a line of billboards along a freeway.

I know I’m not the most savvy Web-surfer around, but this is ridiculous. Last week I was looking up a Web page for a person named “Julie.” I couldn’t believe what I received for results. There were countless sites with titles such as “Buying Julie’s Panties.” (The others are so graphic I don’t think they should be printed.)

On another occasion, I was researching a paper, and I typed “whitehouse.com” into the site field. I know I can’t be the only one who’s made this mistake. Expecting to be connected to a site pertaining to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I was appalled to see six-inch nudie photos materialize on my computer screen. I quickly closed the site before someone called DPS on me.

If it’s so easy for a bumbling 22-year-old to come across these sites by accident, imagine what a 12-year-old could come across. Worse yet, imagine what a group of 12-year-olds who were trying could come across.

This issue of pornography and other graphic material being posted on the Web is not only an issue for those of us who care about kids. It is also an issue that will affect every person’s use of the Internet in the near future.

A decision was expected to be made Monday concerning whether to issue a preliminary injunction blocking a new federal law to shield kids from commercial pornography on the World Wide Web. The case revolves around the Child Protection Act signed into law last October by President Clinton, Dr. Ruth’s poster boy for sexual addiction.

According to Monday’s New York Times, critics are saying that if the law goes into effect, it would force a variety of Web site operators to choose between self-censorship and prison time. They feel that this is in violation of the First Amendment and fear the broadness of the language that is used in the law will cover other graphic material that is not porn.

On the other side of the issue, supporters contend that the law is necessary to prevent commercial sites from making graphic sexual images available to all visitors, including children. It is aimed at free samples offered by pornography sites and does not seek to purge the Web of adult entertainment but to merely place it behind child-proof electronic gates.

C. Damon Hacker, a computer crimes investigator for the Air Force, presented a report on 10 adult Web sites that he found easily after typing in terms like “porn” and “XXX.” He said one site included an image of a woman … well, you know. All of the images were obtained at no charge.

This prompted me to do a little of my own research. Out of a long list of dirty words, I chose the term “porn.” I received hundreds of results including videos, lesbian and gay photos and live sex shows. The list doesn’t stop there. The online porn industry has gone global apparently with sites like “Dutch porn,” “Indian porn” and “Spanish porn.”

Perhaps the most disturbing subtitle I saw was “Teen sex chatroom.” It was listed at least 40 times. The thought of there being that many opportunities for teenagers and surely young children to chat about pornography and sex is disgusting.

The solution is to require age verification before such materials will be available.

According to government officials quoted in the Times article, it will be easy and inexpensive to put questionable material behind age verification screens.

We do not need to scour the Internet and rid it of adult entertainment; that would be an infringement on First Amendment rights.

However, we do need to stand behind the law so that those of us who choose to surf a porn-free Web can, and those who want the whole enchilada can have theirs too. Think of it as Burger King for the World Wide Web — have it your way!

---

Sarah Leonard is a senior in political science and journalism and mass communication from Lawler.