Censorship of the Internet and the Tyranny of Our Government
"To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views also deprives others of the right to listen to those views," said Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr(Censorship and the U.S. Government 1). I completely agree with Mr. Holmes, and when the question of censoring the Internet arises, I cringe. Governing the
Internet dominates many debates, censorship leading the fight. The Internet is the largest and most accessible form of mass media available today. It allows anyone with a few simple tools to consume, and produce, information and ideas to hundreds of people at a practically non-existent cost. Numerous factors indicate censorship of this force is not possible, and not the government's place. It should be left up to the users to decide what is broadcast. Most importantly, censorship of the Internet impairs the expression of ideas and infringes against the First Amendment of the Constitution.
First of all, censoring the Internet as a whole is not possible, so why even try? Cyberspace is the most decentralized form of communication today making policing the Internet a virtually futile task. Unlike television or radio, the Internet consists of thousands of individual computers and networks, with thousands of speakers, information providers and information users, and no centralized distribution point (ACLU vs. Reno Brief 1). No guards watch to see who goes where and if that place is appropriate. The Internet has grown to be a global network. Just because one country deems something inappropriate does not mean that another will comply with the decision and follow the ruling. If posting pictures of bestiality was banned in China, for example, someone in
Switzerland could post those pictures and the Chinese would have access to every single bit of data. Another example, this being completely factual, occurred in
Ontario concerning the Karla Homolka/Paul Bernado trial. The courts decided that in order not to influence the jurors outside of the courtroom that a gag order would be put on media coverage of the trial. Conventional media complied, but an Internet site appeared. This was in turn shut down by the police, but still another appeared (Censorship and the Internet 1). There exists today no way of effectively tracking and determining from where a bulletin was posted, especially with the automatic dialing and encryption technology available. Thus even trying to censor the Internet as a whole would be only an exercise in futility. Although pornography and potentially destructive material exist on the
Internet, not all potentially offensive material shows violent sex acts with
In conclusion, I believe that, even though not mandatory, sequestration of the jury is necessary to insure that Mr. Bryant receives a fair trial without the interference of or commentary by the media, sequestration is the only logical solution aside from a change in the location of the trial.
Imagine a society in which its citizens have forfeited all personal liberties for government protection and stability; Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, explores a civilization in which this hypothetical has become reality. The inevitable trade-off of citizens’ freedoms for government protection traditionally follows periods of war and terror. The voluntary degradation of the citizens’ rights begins with small, benign steps to full, totalitarian control. Major methods for government control and censorship are political, religious, economic, and moral avenues. Huxley’s Brave New World provides a prophetic glimpse of government censorship and control through technology; the citizens of the World State mimic those of the real world by trading their personal liberties for safety and stability, suggesting that a society similar to Huxley’s could exist outside the realm of dystopian science fiction.
With the knowledge of knowing that they are being recorded and watched, those participating in the trial will be alert, thus benefiting them. According to the book written by Larry J. Siegel and Joseph J. Senna, “[t]elevising trials […] ensures that judges, lawyers, and even witnesses act honestly […] especially cameras and TV, can increase community and political pressure on participants …” (395). In essence, the meaning of this quote is that people tend to be careful when they know they are being watched. The participating judges, lawyers, and participants will behave truthfully because they are feeling the pressure of being watched and judged on their actions. No one wants to make a fool out of themselves knowing that, however unlikely, the number of eyes watching could be anywhere from the lucky few in the courtroom to hundreds not present in the room. With...
In mid March of 1998, a scientific break through occurred for the engineers at NASA. The space probe that they sent to Mars came back and, for the first time, contained readable and usable photographs of the planet's landscape. Full of pride over their latest achievement, NASA posted the information on the Internet. This allowed astronomy enthusiasts, students, and other interested individuals to take a first hand look at the, never before seen, Martian Landscape. (NASA)
Depending on whether or not you're a net geek like me, you probably know either everything or nothing about Senate bill 314, the Communications Decency Act. (I'm a huge net geek: I've already received at least three copies of an on-line petition against it.) Senate bill 314, proposed by Senator Exon and currently under consideration in the Senate, would ban obscenity on-line, making it a federal crime to transmit or make available over the internet anything determined to be "obscene...regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication." This ban includes all forms of electronic communication, from telephone calls to file transfer protocol sites (computers on the internet that contain files available to the public for copying) to private e-mail messages. In the original version of the bill, penalties also applied to internet service providers (including universities) whose facilities were used for "obscene" communications; however, after heavy lobbying by CompuServe, America On-Line, and other large internet services, those portions of the bill were stricken. Even in its weakened form, though, Senate bill 314 poses a significant threat to the continued growth of the internet and to constitutional rights.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
On 16th of December 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed. Although we want governments and regimes to abide with the articles not all do. Our government is formed to protect us and to provide every citizen, infrastructure in order to make the person able to live. However our governments also care for themselves as well. They want to stay in power thus they have to protect their reputation. This is where internet censorship steps in. Although censoring some sites is reasonable, some are not. If a site on the internet criticizes the government and if this happens in a country where the government is somewhat oppressive, the site is blocked to access. I believe the level of tolerance towards criticism of a government can be found by the internet censorship in that country. We can categorize these types of governments into five: No or few censorship, normal amounts of censorship, above normal, high amount of censorship and extreme amounts of censorship. I am going to focus about the last three levels. For these levels Republic of Turkey, People’s Republic of China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are examples I am going to talk about. These examples would be coinciding with the levels respectively.
...ear, write or see or do. If censorship of the internet tends to lean the way it is now, just think of how big of a grip the government will have on who we are. It will be impossible to act on our creative thoughts and speak our minds. I guess that means you can take the 1st Amendment and throw it in the trash.
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
that some of the material that is on the net needs to be filtered and regulated. The word censorship is defined as examining any material and prohibiting what is objectionable, according to Webster’s II dictionary. Censoring the internet is a violation of the first ammendment rights of every citizen in the United States. There are two general truths that some people feel are attitudes towards censoring the internet. The first is that very few people admit to favoring it. The second is that no matter who you are, in a matter of minutes spent surfing the net almost anyone can find something that they find to be offensive. In fact, some web surfers feel that the truly inappropriate things are inspired by one’s own religion. For example, the Nurenberg Files website showed pictures of mangled fetuses with the photograph, name, and address of some abortion clinic doctors.
They withhold any form of judgement until the end of the trial. Jury Service “brings out the ordinary
Censorship has been used by governments and influential groups throughout history as a tool for political and economic gain since ancient times. The Romans thought censorship was necessary to shape the morals of society to match up with government ideals. During the 1500's the Catholic Church banned certain texts that conflicted with the established religion from being read. In these times the idea of censorship was viewed differently that it is today. With powerful organizations limiting information it was often impossible for an average person to obtain literature or hear ideas that vary from state ideals, they probably didn't even know that their information was being censored. We live in a different age today, information is more readily available and censorship is often looked at as a negative practice that limits freedoms. That said, it still exists today and can be viewed as an obstacle to true democracy.
As the times change, so does the latest technology. In the mid-1900's it was the television, before that the radio, and now in the late-20th and 21st century we have the internet. With the coming of every new media outlet audiences and media moguls migrate. Along with the migrations are the politicians who try to use the new form of media to more easily reach the public. It's come to the point where the internet increasingly work with democracy directly; some elections in the United States even going so far as to hold online polling in a general election. "Online voting is increasingly making its way int our political process," writes Vote.com President Dick Morris, "the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary tallied 39,942 online votes," (Morris 1034). However, should the internet really be used to such degrees in the case of democracy? There is an ongoing debate among scholars on the topic. One thing to consider is whether or not the many accusations stating that the internet is an aid to terrorism outweigh the positive effects of how the internet has strengthened democracy and has had a crucial part in turning oppressed nations into less oppressed, democratic states. On the subject of terrorism being aided by the internet, making it easier for terrorist factions leaders to inform their people, could it not be argued that these factions leaders could use other means of communication, maybe only a little less effectively and therefore nullifying the accusation that the internet is the culprit? After extensive research, it's clear that the internet does not harm democracy; on the contrary, the internet strengthens it in a way that no other form of media has done before.
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.
way to voice their own opinions and to be inappropriate, then they should be kept private and out