"wired" who are affected by the changes I am describing here are not ex-
actly the same "wired" who built the open source and free software move-
ments that I spoke about there.

But in a critical sense, they are the same. Both innovate by building on
the content that has gone before. Both therefore reveal how much creativity
depends upon the creativity that has gone before. Both show, that is, inno-
vation as adding something to the work of others.

In some cases, the restrictions I describe in this chapter apply directly to
the innovators of Chapter 4. Patent law, for example, poses one of the most
significant threats to the open code movement that there is. But in general,
the changes I describe in this chapter are aimed at controlling a new gen-
eration of "wired" folks -- those who see the platform of the Internet as an
opportunity for a different way of producing and distributing content and
those who see the content on the Net as a resource for making better and
different content. The changes in this chapter are changes that reestablish
control over this class of potentially wired souls.

///\\\

When the Net emerged into the popular press, there was an anxiety
among many about what the Net would make possible. People could do
things _there_ that we had discouraged or made illegal _here_.

Pornography was the most dramatic example of this anxiety. The freedom
of the Net meant, the world quickly learned, the freedom of anyone --
regardless of age -- to read the obscene. The news was filled with instances
of kids getting access to material deemed "harmful to minors." The demand
of many was that Congress do something to respond.

In 1996, Congress did respond, by passing the Communications De-
cency Act (CDA).[11-1] Its aim was to protect children from "indecent content"
in cyberspace. The act was stupidly drafted, practically impaling itself upon
the First Amendment, but its aim was nothing new. Laws have long been
used to protect children from material deemed "harmful to minors." Con-
gress was attempting to extend that protection here.

Congress failed. It failed because the CDA was overbroad, regulating
speech that could not be regulated constitutionally. And it failed because it
had not properly considered the burden this regulation would impose upon
activity in cyberspace. The statute required adult IDs before adult content
could be made available. But to require sites to keep and run ID machines
was to burden Internet speech too severely. Congress would have to guar-
antee that the burden it was imposing on the Internet generally was no

[[178]]

p177 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p178w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p179

v?