"Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig."
U.S. Supreme Court majority decision, Reno v. ACLU (June 26, 1997)
Blocking and filtering software for the Internet is one of the most hotly debated topics regarding free speech and the Internet. Many have criticized blocking software for being both under and over inclusive, and others have argued that blocking software should not be used at all in public institutions such as libraries and schools. On the other side, supporters of blocking software claim that is a legitimate method to regulate access to "inappropriate" material on the Internet, especially access for minors. But, before we begin to look at these debates directly, we have to examine how the different types of blocking software available work.
Nearly all blocking software contains several features that enable the user to customize it for their particular preferences. Users can set the particular levels and/or categories they want the software to screen. So, for example, a user could instruct his browser to block all nudity and sex acts, but still allow sex education and intolerance, while another users could do the opposite. Another common feature is the ability to unblock particular web sites when they are blocked. So, if a user was attempting to access the CNN web site, and it was blocked because it contained, for example, the Starr report, the user could unblock it. A final common feature of most blocking software is that it can be turned on and off for particular users on a particular machine, so that parents can turn the software on when their children are using the computer, but allow themselves unlimited access.
Blocking software works in several major ways: blocking by word, blocking particular sites, blocking all sites except those on a "white list," and blocking by preset ratings.
Most of the first blocking software worked by blocking words; the software would scan web sites for certain, unacceptable words such as "breast" or "sex." This type of software was often ridiculed, because it is ridiculously over broad, for example blocking sites on breast cancer or news sites about the President. In addition, this type of blocking has the disadvantage of not being able to scan pictures for unacceptable m...
... middle of paper ...
...ts computers. Representative Bob Franks of New Jersey introduced a similar bill in the House, dubbed the "Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999".
In addition, the constitutionality of library filters has been, and continues to be, litigated in several cases. All cases decided to this point have declared mandatory filters on all library computers to be unconstitutional.
Many argue that the PICS system is the best way to provide for parental empowerment in order to manage their children's internet use. These people point out that, at least for now, the PICS system is voluntary and that third parties can rate sites. The rating systems used in conjunction with PICS establish a uniform standard that parents can rely on, instead of the opinions of software companies' list makers.
The purpose behind Internet filters is to provide parents, educators and other with an effective tool to protect minors from harmful material through their computers. At first blush they appear to be a simple technological fix to the problem of indecency on the Internet. However, this simple solution has touched off a firestorm of controversy, which show no signs of cooling off in the near future.
The type of content usually censored is sexual or violent things but Ballaro states, “Some bans (and the filtering software used to enforce them) eliminated access not only to pornographic materials but also to legitimate health and medical information” (Ballaro 1). If someone were to become sick, looking up symptoms on the internet is not the most efficient way to go about finding out what sickness they have, or what kind of treatments there are. Going to a professional would ensure that they get the correct diagnosis and treatment. Everything on the internet can be changed and not knowing the accuracy of a source is going to make the search more or less accurate. Children are also a big part of why things are censored. In the same passage, it is explained,“Opponents of Internet Censorship argue that education, not censorship, represents the best means of protecting children…” (Ballaro 1). Telling someone not to do something will just make them want to do it more. Educating kids on the dangers of the internet will not stop them from going on the internet. Protection children from all scammers and hackers, not just to mention explicit material, would also be challenging considering the internet is changing rapidly each day. Why not just block websites that are bad so even if children are tempted, they can not go to
... good and safe concise decisions. Censoring laws on the internet now are important to protect kids most; and all others at risk. We need more laws enacted against exploitation and privacy against potential harm while using the internet. We are supposed to protect the weak. Therefore as a whole we can prosper in future generations hand in hand with our technological advancements.
If anyone is offended by what is said on the internet, then they can remember to not visit the webpage next time and hold themselves accountable. This paper will examine the issue of internet censorship constituting a violation of the American people, individual rights, common good, and the constitution. Many laws were proposed to censor the internet, most fail in Congress but 3 have succeeded.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The inherent educational value of the Internet is being realized in schools across the country. The vast web of information is easily accessible and is quickly taking the place of traditional library resources, because of its current events and diverse views. Understanding the importance of this new technology, the Clinton administration is pushing for school Internet connection with the goal of "more than 97 percent of public schools connected by the year 2000 (Hoffman 15)." However, serious problems arise due to the very nature of the Net. Alongside the educational and commercial resources are sites with pornography, criminal advocacy, and illegal drug manufacturing information. According to Syllabus magazine, "a keystone question becomes how to deal with this richness and diversity of information and interchanges while providing a safe e...
In 1998, a district court in Virginia made a ruling on the use of filtering software in public libraries that set a precedent for the unconstitutionality of internet filters. Todd Anten’s article, “Please Disable the Entire Filter: Why Non-Removable Filters on Public Library Computers Violate the First Amendment gives an account of the ruling. The Loudoun County Library had instituted restrictions to internet access on all library computers with software that would block sites that “displayed obscene material, child pornog...
As a parent you really cannot do anything about what your child views while at the library or while at school. You could tell them that they are not allowed to look at those sites, but sometimes those sites just pop up, or we all know that when we tell a child that they cannot so something it makes them want to do it even more. You can keep them from viewing certain things at home but other than that there is not much that you can do. Sorry, but it is true. There are people out there that are trying to change this, and we see this by the laws that are continuing to be made and changing. As I said earlier filters cannot be perfect, there will always be problems with them, but we just have to deal with them the way that they are. That is just life.
Tears begin to fall down a child’s face. Her body goes into shock out of fear. Her mother warned her about watching inappropriate content, and there it was, right on her computer screen. This could not have happened though. All she was doing was casually browsing the internet before a pop-up appeared. Although it may seem hard to believe, the major cause of events such as this is the lack of censorship on the internet. Internet censorship relates to the removal of offensive, inappropriate, or controversial content published online. The current problem with the internet is that there are few restrictions on what can be published or viewed. Several sites on the internet only offer a warning about inappropriate content that can easily be bypassed by agreeing to the terms. Other websites provide access to private or military information. More dreadfully, however, are websites that use their explicit content as a promotion. These factors bring the conclusion that anybody of any given age can view and publish inappropriate or dangerous content. The current problems with the internet serve for clarification as to why the United States should create a nonpartisan assembly to censor the internet in order to protect its citizens from the mental, emotional, and physical harms the internet creates.
Abstract: This paper examines the use of Internet technologies (specifically SafeWeb.com) to counteract invasions of personal privacy and censorship. The paper begins by exploring the methods by which governments, corporations, and commercial agents invade personal privacy. It also discusses Internet censorship on the corporate and governmental levels. It then proceeds to discuss SafeWeb.com, a technology that allows Internet users to surf the Web privately and view censored content. The paper finishes by exploring some of the ethical issues raised by Internet privacy and censorship in specific relation to SafeWeb, concluding that the application of SafeWeb in circumventing the authority of governments and corporations is inherently unethical.
“While most teenagers (60 percent) spend on average 20 hours per week in front of television and computer screens, a third spend closer to 40 hours per week, and about 7 percent are exposed to more than 50 hours of 'screen-time' per week”(Many Teens Spend). Many parents agree that they would rather not have their children view indecencies on the Internet and television, and the government should control the obscenities on the Internet. Others believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to control and censor what their children are watching on the Internet and television.
The invention of the internet has been one of the major advances of the modern world. It has allowed people from all over the globe to communicate with each other and ideas to be shared. In addition to this it is a free platform. Unlike television and radio it doesn’t cost anything to put your idea on the internet, making it a base of personal expression. This freedom coupled with the global access attracts around a billion users worldwide. Unfortunately, just as easily as the information is produced it is abused. The internet, although mostly used appropriately does harbour all manner of illegal activities. These range from phishing scams, trying to steal someone’s personal details, viruses, malicious code that attacks a person’s computer and websites that are morally questionable or illegal under Australian law. To combat this, the Rudd government has started action to impose an internet service provider level internet filter. An internet service provider is any company that provides internet services to its customers. Most notable of these is Telstra which is one of the top internet service providers in Australia. This filter will prevent a list of websites, the blacklist, from being accessed in Australia. In theory this is an excellent plan, but in reality, once implemented it will have little effect on preventing the illegal activity which occurs on the internet. The major arguments against the proposed filter are, cost of the filter, the ineffectiveness of the filter to stop illegal activity and the possibility of the blacklist expanding to block anti-government websites.
The Internet has affected our lives in a considerable way. We use the internet in order to connect with society, look up information for work and educational purposes, shop, handle daily errands such as paying bills and so on. Children are not excluded from this, in fact they are capable of using internet more effectively than adults. The reason for this being that chıldren are able to learn to use new technology faster than theır adult counterparts. It is wıdely accepted that having internet connection can be very useful for children, teachers and children consider internet as a powerful tool to access to academic sources to research for theır classes and homework (Ofcome, 2007). Also having the internet is perceived as an good opportunity for children to meet new people and keep up with their friends. This is true if children use internet in a proper way. However, there is a possibility that they can encounter inappropriate materials even while searching for educational information or trying to relax with games. Violent scenes and uncensored sexual material cause serious damage for childhood development, as they can cause children to be aggressive and lonely adults. The first solution for protecting children from these harms is internet blocking and filtering programs. Although they come to forefront by means of their easy usage properties, most of the time filtering programs cannot provide an overall coverage from the internet’s harm. Therefore, parents should have involved in this process by monitoring and helping their children. Moreover media lessons which inform students about the internet’s harm can be very helpful for children.
People that visit pornographic sites in college as an art may find a restriction on the World Wide Web to be totally stupid. They may need these sites to pass a class and the restrictions would only hurt them. Restrictions would only be limiting their knowledge so this is why I feel that restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Free speech on the Internet is a very controversial subject and has been the key problem surrounding the Internet today. The attempt to regulate and govern the Internet is still pursued by government officials. This subject has been intensified due to terrorist attacks against the United States and around world within the past years. The government believes that by regulating the Internet, it will protect the general public from criminal actions and eliminate the exposure of children to pornography or vulgar language. Senator Jim Exon of ...
While it is possible to intercept and not allow such things on the internet on the Internet such as pornography, or material containing racist or violent content, in order to really do so the entire net would have to be controlled. An important question that has to be asked is who will do the monitoring, and what will they base their criteria on.
The Internet is an extremely educational and communicative tool. Everyone can access a tremendous amount of information and connect with people on the other end of the planet; it is capable of doing everything. Nowadays, the society is facing a variety of challenges and controversies which are mostly related to religion, morality, the economic crisis, etc., and the most talked-about issue in today’s world is “Internet censorship”. Although the Internet is very useful, many people are suggesting the idea of censoring the Internet; however, the government should not censor the Internet because a free and open Internet usage has many positive impacts on people’s lives.