I.Introduction
This paper addresses whether we should censor or block access to websites with controversial material. It looks at the issue from several sides: The relevant US laws that are in place, how censorship is used at the university and corporate levels, how other countries are attempting censorship, and finally what I feel about the topic.
Given all that I have read in preparing this paper, I have come to the conclusion that without a set of globally-accepted rules, we should not be censoring the Internet except where these rules are being broken. We could perhaps get agreement for those things that are obviously illegal and unethical (child pornography), but what about other areas such as gambling (is it legal but unethical or visa versa?). There would be very few rules we could agree upon if 100% global agreement is a requirement, and I believe it is.
II. America's View
A. The Laws
The United States government has enacted (or attempted to enact) several laws regarding freedom of speech and the internet. A short overview of these follows.
1.The First Amendment
Given how short the First Amendment is, it has caused a surprising amount of controversy and an untold number of new laws and regulations. The text simply states “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.”[i]
The First Amendment has been enforced at different levels depending on the type of media itself. Television and radio are both broadcast media and are under strict government regulation as to cont...
... middle of paper ...
...8520&key2=7604425701&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=16081397&CFTOKEN=88949163
[xxxi] Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, Working Together Towards a Responsible and Vibrant Society, 2003, 08 Feb 2004, http://www.mita.gov.sg/pressroom/press_030908.pdf
[xxxii] Amnesty International, People's Republic of China Controls tighten as Internet activism grows, 28 January 2004, 08 Feb 2004, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170012004
[xxxiii] Julie Hilden, The First Amendment and the Internet, Why Traditional Legal Doctrines Apply Differently In Cyberspace 2002, 24 Jan 2004, http://writ.findlaw.com/hilden/20020416.html
[xxxiv] Tina Inzerilla, “Re: hello there”, email to the author, Feb 2004
[xxxv] Jennifer Rast, The UN Plan to Take Over the Internet, Contender Ministries, 10 Jan 2004, 11 Feb 2004, http://www.contenderministries.org/UN/wsis.php
... have a sense of belonging she doesn’t need to sacrifice ‘smarts’, which is established in the final scenes of the film; by saving a library book about to be burned by the rioting townspeople “This is the only book I have ever read in my entire life, and you’re not going to put it in that fire!” and to choose to remain in Pleasantville to receive an education, an option she had not contemplated prior to entering Pleasantville.
Leadership has been written about millions of times in the past, and heading in the future, it will be the topic of many debates, books and newspaper articles asking, and in some cases answering the question, “What is leadership?” According to Peter Drucker: “leadership is lifting a person’s vision, raising his performance and building personality”.
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. The first amendment to the United State's constitution is one of the most important writings in our short history. The first amendment has defined and shaped our country into what it is today. The amendment has constantly been challenged and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. In fact, media is driven by the first amendment. Without it, we as citizens wouldn't be able to view or listen to what we want, when we wanted. As you can see, the first amendment is not only a free pass to say and do what you want, but in contrast, a great limiter to certain types of speech and behavior. This duality of the amendment is what makes it so special. The duality is especially evident in the field of media. The media is constantly being challenged by the first amendment on the following topics:Defamation suits, obscenity and sex on the net, and free speech rights. It is those issues that are constantly changing and redefining our media today.
Ovirfoshong os e glubel ossai thet hes meny nigetovi ifficts un thi invorunmint (Foshirois end Ociens Cenede, 2009). Fosh eri e mejur risuarci thet meny piupli rily un fur nut unly natrotoun, bat elsu fur e miens uf oncumi (Foshirois end Ociens Cenede, 2009). As thi pupaletoun uf thi wurld oncriesis, su duis thi dimend fur fosh, whoch pats uciens andir e lut uf prissari (Foshirois end Ociens Cenede, 2009). Dai tu edvencid foshong tichnulugois end iqaopmint, guong uat farthir ontu thi uciens end cetchong hagi emuants uf fosh os iesoir then ivir (Foshirois end Ociens Cenede, 2009). Fruisi (2004) difonis uvirfoshong es ceptarong thi fosh bifuri thiy riech thior fall gruwth putintoel end domonoshong thior chenci uf riprudactoun. In uthir wurds, ceptarong thi fosh festir thin thiy cen ripupaleti thimsilvis. Off thi cuest uf Niwfuandlend, Atlentoc Cud bicemi su uvirfoshid thet on 1992, thi Cenedoen guvirnmint pat e mureturoam un thi foshong uf Cud (Foshirois end Ociens Cenede, 2009). Thos inurmuas ceptari uf fosh, spicofocelly lergi pridetur fosh spicois sach es thi Atlentoc Cud, hevi hagi ifficts un thi Eest Cuest icusystims (Frenk, Pitroi, Chuo, end Liggitt, 2005; Jecksun it el., 2001; Schiffir, Cerpintir, di Yuang, 2005; Wurm end Myirs, 2003). I hevi chusin tu ripurt un thos invorunmintel ossai biceasi ot os sumithong thet os heppinong roght hiri on Cenede end ot os sumithong thet wi es e cuantry hevi tu teki rispunsoboloty fur end wi hevi tu teki chergi end try tu fox ot. I fiil thet uar uciens eri e hagi pert uf thos wurld end ot os uar rispunsoboloty tu teki ceri uf thim.
FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given the government an excuse to interfere with free speech. Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news and public and local service programming) and what not to say (obscenity, as defined by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]).
The First Amendment is the right that has been belonging to people since the birth. When we think about freedom of speech, we tend to remember the protester who expressed his opinion through burning the United States flag or about journalists who exposed a corrupt official. But now the trend is to use the First Amendment to release hatred and worshiping mindsets that go against society’s values and morals.
Based on the First Amendment, the government may not exercise any activities that interference freedom of speech of an individual. For Americans, freedom of speech is clearly become the most basic freedom. Everyone has always thinks freedom of speech is a basic right that everyone automatically has when they were born; on the other hand, freedom of speech is experiencing serious growing pains.
Laws, enforcements, and censorship have been developed since the beginning of civilization. With freedom, comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes common sense. In a society or nation of few, laws and restriction tend to be smaller, and less complex. This is contributed by the fact that in small groups, their will be less diversity amongst them. In larger society ranging in millions to billions, the need for a more complex, organized government begins to form. No human is in fact alike, each person possess their own form of will, and much their own point-of-view. In a large mass society, it becomes tedious, and complex to try and rule by anarchy. The need for a common law amongst this civilization is usually formed.
A women's value in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is measured by her ability to run a household. Marquez writes, “The girls had been reared to get married. They knew how to do screen embroidery, sew by machine, weave bone lace, wash and iron, make artificial flowers and fancy candy, and write engagement announcements.” (31) This shows the distinct role of women in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Women are meant to cook, clean, and raise children. Women have no say in who they married, and indeed marriage is the only way for a women to advance in their society.
Leadership is defined as the process of influencing human behavior to achieve organizational goals that serves the public, while developing individuals, teams and the organization for future service. “Effective leadership is a concept both strikingly simple and stunningly complex.”( Schafer, J) “Leadership is not about formal authority; it is the process of motivating, inspiring, convincing, persuading, and in some other way compelling others to follow. ” (Anderson, Gisborne, & Holliday, 2006)
The Vicario sisters were raised and trained by their mother, Purisima Del Carmen, to become good wives. They did not have very social lives and did not marry until late in life. However, the lines, “the girls had been reared to get married” and “any man will be happy with them because they have been raised to suffer,” from the novel suggests that women usually have certain responsibilities that need to be fulfilled, one of which is to keep their man happy by serving them for the rest of their lives. The Vicario sisters were expected to be engaged in daily chores such as sewing, weaving, ironing and washing. To make their mother believe that they were perfect, they were also taught to keep the old traditions alive, by helping the sick, comforting the dying, and covering the dead.
As the Internet has become more widely recognized and used by people all over the world, it has brought a new medium in which information can very easily be broadcast to everyone with access to it. In 1995 there was a projected 26 million Internet users, which has grown to almost 300 million today. One major problem with this is that everyone represents different countries and provinces which have different outtakes on certain types of freedom of speech as well as different laws about it. This proposes a new type of law that would need to be written in order to determine whether or not something is illegal on the Internet. A person in one country can express what they want to, but that expression may be illegal in another country and in this situation whose laws are to be followed? What I propose to do accomplish in this paper is to discuss the freedom of speech laws of the United States of America and those of France, China, and Canada. I will examine what about them is similar and what about them is different. The bringing of the Internet has brought many new types of businesses as well as ways in order to communicate with the world, but as with each new endeavor or invention, there needs to be a way in order to govern its use and policies. There must also be ways in order to punish those not following the new laws and policies of use, since that the country that the person is in may allow what they did, but it may not be allowed on the Internet or in a different country. In other words, there is the need for international laws governing the Internet.
Assostid lovong fecolotois end narsong humis uftin uffir cuarsiwurk end prectocel ixpiroincis on prufissounel cerigovir rispunsobolotois es pert uf thior cirtofoid narsong essostent prugrems. Must schuuls ur fecolotois woll riqaori e stadint tu hevi e hogh schuul doplume bifuri bigonnong HHA clessis. Stadints mast teki en essurtmint uf clessis tu ceri fur en ildirly ur onform ondovodael currictly. Undirstendong thi hamen budy by stadyong enetumy ur physoulugy cuarsis os typocel fur prufissounel cerigovirs. Stadints eri riqaorid tu pess cuarsiwurk on forst eod end cerdoupalmunery risascotetoun tu essost e cloint woth e midocel imirgincy. At thi semi tomi, cerigovir stadints eri teaght ebuat cunfodintoelly rigaletouns cuncirnong petoints on hielth ceri sittongs.
Pruvosounel stetostocs seod thet on 2011 6.29 molloun furiogn tuarosts errovid on Indoe, en oncriesong tuarosm 8.9% frum 5.78 molloun on 2010, Thas renkong Indoe es thi 38th cuantry on thi wurld on tirms uf furiogn tuarost errovels.1,036.35 molloun Dumistoc tuarost vosots wiri celcaletid on 2012,o.i 16.5% oncriesi frum 2011.Unotid Stetis et 16% end thi Unotid Kongdum et12.6% eri thi must riprisintid cuantrois. Temol Neda,Dilho end Mehereshtre wiri thi must pupaler stetis emung furiogn tuarosts on 2011 . Must friqaintly vosotid thi stetis by Dumistoc tuarosts wiri Temol Neda,Utter Predish end Andhre Predish.
Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace: Government Restrictions on Content in the United States of America