After watching Carly Fiorina’s comments on the regulation of the internet, I must conclude that the broad attacks on her are unfair and largely unwarranted. During an interview last week, she made a couple of quick points regarding the regulation of the internet:

(1) the web should not continue to be considered a “sphere apart” from reality;

(2) the anything goes “wild wild west” character of the internet cannot go on forever;

(3) taxes should be tailored to the internet in ways that work;

(4) we can’t allow exploitation of women and children to persist on the net that would be illegal in other contexts; and

(5) that regulation of the internet will likely increase.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on speech regulation because that seems to be the primary concern of the Fiorina critics.

Fiorina’s comments have been attacked by the DeVore camp and others as being an unconstitutional infringement of speech. The DeVore video response insinuates that the First Amendment would prohibit the regulation described by Fiorina. The problem with this portrayal is that it is simply not true. Congress, states, and local governments restrict speech all of the time. For example, we are not subjected to hardcore pornography on the network channels during family viewing hours. We cannot see the inside of a strip club from street view. Students cannot possess the Anarchists’ Cookbook on school premises. The viewership of violent movies is restricted. Protests are limited to certain areas, times, and durations. All Fiorina said is that the internet should not be treated differently. Presumably, such restrictions would be applied in new ways conducive to content on the internet. Also, is the DeVore camp prepared to argue against any content regulations on network television? His free speech argument would require such a stand. The Fiorina argument, if nothing else, is consistent.

Conservatives need not have an absolutist view of free expression. The conservative justices of the Supreme Court, in fact, have authored majority and minority opinions against unlimited free expression by upholding nudity bans, zoning restrictions on adult theaters, and flag burning bans.

Those restrictions, except the flag burning ban, are permitted under the First Amendment. As for public policy preferences, pro-family, pro-traditional values coalitions would applaud the application of television or movie regulations to the access of adult materials online. Certainly, such regulations would upset the libertarians amongst us, but that is getting at a much larger debate about political theory that need not be revisited here.

The slippery slope argument used against Fiorna, that any type of restriction on speech will ultimately result in tyranny, is not persuasive when certain speech in other media is already regulated. Have regulations related to violence and explicit sexual images on television threatened our political freedom? I would argue not. We can reasonably discern the difference between the suppression of political dissent and the state interest in restricting obscene images. In addition, First Amendment protections will extend to speech regulation on the internet, just like any other medium, so any government overreaching will quickly be struck down. We have plenty of First Amendment lawyers for such a task.

Let’s be fair to Fiorina and turn down the rhetoric for a moment. This republic will survive Fiorina's speculation about the future of internet regulations. She may be a wonderful or a horrible candidate based on other factors--she's widely expected to officially announce late next week so we'll all find out together soon.

What I do know is that she, like Chuck DeVore, would be a Heaven-sent improvement over Senator Boxer, so Fiorina should not be denied careful and fair consideration based on these limited statements. If anything, the silly, hyperbolic video response from the DeVore campaign over this whole thing is probably more troubling, in the scheme of things.

Nothing to see here, folks... move along.

...click here to view the 'point' commentary on this subject, to which this article is a response.