http://the.government.may.soon. censor.you.and.me

As editor in chief of The Daily Collegian, I am a censor. Every day, I have the final say about what content appears in the Collegian and what content does not.

I don't usually use my censorship power, because a staff of nearly 30 editors works hard every day to make those decisions, based on factors such as libel and taste. But in the end, it is I who can decide what to print and what not to print.

That's what editors in chief do, because that's what the First Amendment's freedom of the press and freedom of speech guarantees allow them to do. But now that may be changing, thanks to the controversial Communications Decency Act passed by Congress.

Today, perhaps as you're reading this column, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments about the CDA. The justices are being asked to decide the legality of the act's ban on "indecent" and "patently offensive" material available on the Internet. The act actually only forbids making such material available to children, but the nature of the Internet thus really means all indecent material would be prohibited.

This all probably sounds very distant to you. Chances are you don't publish anything indecent on-line. And even if you do, who would ever catch you and prosecute you?

That's exactly how I felt, until an article on The Digital Collegian showed up in a Supreme Court brief as an example of journalism that might be deemed indecent under the CDA.

On Oct. 2 the Daily Collegian published an article detailing a visit to University Park by Andres Serrano, a controversial art photographer. The same article also was posted on The Digital Collegian. According to an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, or friend of the court brief as it is sometimes called, the Collegian's honest descriptions of the famous artist's work would probably fall under the CDA's indecency label.

Thus, if the Supreme Court finds the CDA to be a legal restraint on free press and free speech, the Collegian could possibly face future criminal charges. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up!

Here's the irony: There is absolutely, positively nothing illegal about printing that same article in the Daily Collegian newspaper. But as soon as those same words are published in an electronic format on a World Wide Web site, they are the instrument of a crime -- a crime punishable by up to two years in prison. That's a very dangerous precedent for our country to be setting.

"Indecent" and "patently offensive material" is protected under the First Amendment, though it may not always be pleasant or tasteful.

But if the First Amendment was intended to protect only pleasant, agreeable speech, there would be no need for the amendment in the first place.

What courts have said about the First Amendment is that it's not an absolute right, ruling that "obscene" material -- which is held to a much stricter standard -- can be made illegal.

But to say anything "indecent" or "patently offensive" is prohibited on the Internet is to restrict free speech in a way our country has never seen before.

The Internet, especially the World Wide Web, has the potential to be the great equalizer when it comes to expression of ideas. It's a place where anyone, even someone with little resources, can proclaim their thoughts and ideas. It's a place where minority voices can be on equal ground, where uncommon and unheard voices can be heard. (No wonder the government is scared!)

But all that changes if the CDA is upheld by the Supreme Court. Suddenly, everything we say on the Internet must be G-rated. The greatest, most global form of communication ever will suddenly become a lame Disney movie.

And that means a lot more will be censored than just a Digital Collegian article. Some examples:

• Stories about AIDS and safe-sex practices.
  

• Speech about gay, lesbian and bisexual issues.
  

• Accurate descriptions of international human-rights abuses.
  

• Discussion of the so-called "partial birth abortion" procedure.
  

• Excerpts from Howard Stern's "Private Parts" book.
  

• Reproductions of ancient Indian sculptures.
  

• The famous Vanity Fair nude cover photo of Demi Moore.
  

• Discussion about the merits and dangers of pornography.
  

The danger of such an act is very clear. Repeatedly, the Daily Collegian Board of Opinion urged its readers to contact legislators and urge them to vote against the CDA. Not enough people did.

Now it's too late. All we can do is hold our breath as seven men and two women decide the fate of free speech. I, and every other editor in chief in the country, must wait to find out if the censors of the 21st century will be us or the government.

That's what I call indecent.