The foundation of America and the individuality of its citizens was built over 200 years ago with the creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, is probably the most important Amendment as well as the most difficult to interpret. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Amendment No. 1 of the National Archives Constitution). Therefore, this amendment grants Americans specific unalienable rights and allows them to be at least somewhat separate from the government. However, it is precisely this amendment that is the subject of particular attention in today's information age. It is through interpreting this statement that we must evaluate the rights of the Internet surfer, determine what responsibility the government has to censor some or all of the explicit pages of innocent minor children, and evaluate whether such censorship violates our inalienable rights as American citizens. However, regardless of censorship rulings passed by the government, the responsibility for monitoring Internet use must fall in the hands of parents. Just a week ago (April 5, 1999), the Department of Justice appealed an anti-censorship ruling issued by Federal Judge Lowell Reed of Pennsylvania. Reed had the opportunity to weigh in and comment on the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA), Congress' second attempt to regulate content on the Internet1. Judge Reed rejected this act on the grounds that it was in direct violation of the First Amendment. He argued that “the First Amendment was intended to prevent the majority, through acts of Congress, from silencing those who expressed unpopular or unconventional opinions” (Speech 1). Reed went on to demonstrate that before the widespread use of the Internet a person's ability to express their opinions to a large group of people was limited by the "costs [of] reaching the masses" (Reed Text 1). Before the Internet, people who wanted to express their ideas had to pay large sums of money for advertising and propaganda to promote their opinions. It was very difficult for an individual, especially one without much money, to spread their ideas to the public: the Internet allows the individual to do so inexpensively..