Many old-time Net users believe that the Net may herald a new era of peace, instead of realizing that the more likely scenario is that the Net will let people misunderstand each and start fights faster. This is a medium in which flame wars are endemic. Fortunately, top-level diplomats understand this is not going to change because the participants work for the United Nations. All of these border wars really are about control. People in general, most of whom are not online, are not asking how or if the Net can be governed, but how it can be edited into their idea of something that's safe.
Control is a one-way process.
Government, at least of the kind we're used to, is supposed to be a two-way process. If you accept that principle as a basis for reasoning, and also accept that the longer someone has been online and the more familiar they are with the Net the less they perceive it as frightening or dangerous, the way the Net reacts to threats to its sense of freedom starts to make sense. From the point of view you begin to develop after many years on the Net, laws like the CDA impose restrictions but offer no benefits in return to the many Netizens who are confident of their ability to handle their kids' questions. After all, it's obvious to a lot of us that our kids are at much less risk disembodied over a phone line than they are on a street corner or even, in many cases, sadly, in their own homes, President Clinton's suggestion that a 7-11 store is safer notwithstanding. Regulating cyberspace is a lot like shooting the messenger.