Internet Censorship

The use of censorship by one side to gain power over another is apparent throughout history. The development of technology has posed several issues for both parties, both making censorship more and less difficult to enforce. This is especially prevalent in today’s society, where the internet has ensnared the current younger generations with its social networking and online entertainment industries. Even further detrimental to this modernized culture is how this freedom has prevented anyone from efficiently limiting connections to these such sites. The place where internet censorship is most commonly present is in schools, where it raises many issues and questions about the effectiveness of installing the filters.

Governments generally argue for the use of censorship for the purpose of discouraging and disallowing the access to inappropriate material and other harmful practices, but further extend their censorship’s reach to affect many other facets of the internet; including politically sensitive material and discussions. There are several techniques which may be used to restrict the content deemed offensive by a government. This means that the authority in a given country can effectively restrict access to any material which they deem to be offensive. This is almost unavoidable for the citizens affected and so the resources which their internet holds are quite limited by these restrictions. As the internet has become such a valuable resource, people are not happy about its restriction.

There are many countries that don’t allow the use of the internet at all and some countries only censor what they don’t want their citizens to know. Daniel Calingaert said “The internet has provided greater space for free expression in countries where traditional broadcast and print media are restricted” (64). Free expression is a very guarded privilege to United States citizens. Private citizens and businesses can censor what is accessed on their computers to protect themselves, so why would it not be acceptable for the government to censor what is accessed in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Some believe this is an infringement of free speech, while others find censorship of the internet a necessary evil in today’s cyber world.

Placing such power in the hands of people required additional censorship options are put in place to protect businesses and people alike. The act of censoring certain activities has brought up the controversial questions of “Is Web censorship essential to avoid a number of on the internet offences?” This topic is quite important as well as sensitive when speaking on who has the right to decide what freedom we have on the internet. The answers given will be based off morally and ethically steered views. Because of that fact alone, many answers will vary because everyone is not morally and ethically in sync with one another’s views and standards. We’ll take a look at the issue from different professional arenas to compare and contrast the viewpoints given.

Those who support the information epoch, tend to consider Internet to be essential and productive in educating its population. However, those who don’t favor content on the internet want to build limitations since they think that some of the content is unnecessary and which might have the power to negatively influence people. As a matter of fact, some of the governments don’t find reasonable for all the information to be posted on Internet, thus they want to censor some of it based on their beliefs. In this case, government as the ruling power selects certain issues, which they think might harm national prosperity. But, this action leads to empowering more the government and leave citizens behind.

Censorship would damage the freelance atmosphere on the Internet where freedom to express ideas is what most of us enjoy so much. If the Government steps and ceases control of the Internet it wouldn’t be any different than Communism or even Dictatorship. Therefore our Government should not encourage censorship. To underst... ... middle of paper ... ...html> 7.Howard Rheingold, Rheingold’s Tomorrow: Why Censoring Cyberspace is Dangerous & Futile, 1995, 2 June 2004, <http://www.well.com/www/hlr/tomorrow/tomorrowcensor.html> 8.Corn-Revere, New Age Comstockery: Exam vs. the Internet Policy Analysis No.232, 1995, Diss. Howgan & Hartson Law Firm.

Also, if the U.N. were to take charge, the cost to deliver their services globally would be far too costly for website like google. Since many Countries have their own agendas and policies implemented, there is no need for the U.N. to regulate the Internet. Since Internet monitoring is a controversial issue on a political and societal scale, it has both negatives and positives that benefit both the government and people. Although some may oppose Internet monitoring, it is necessary in some circumstances. It can help prevent and detect cybercrime, unauthorized access to sensitive data, and terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly opposes this idea in their article "Fahrenheit 451.2-Is Cyberspace Burning?". Carr explains that with "rating systems" the "cyber-libertarians see not enhanced consumer choice, but new tools being fashioned to allow authoritarian interests to 'lock out' unpopular views, or otherwise to control the content of the Internet by requiring all ISP's to run it on their servers." In short, they fear that minority opinions or tastes will be excluded. Overall, Carr finalizes with the point that, "If we do nothing to curb some of the more rampant exce... ... middle of paper ... ... are looking, in good faith, for new answers to the new problems thrown up by the new technology." Works Cited Krantz, Michael.

This law can also be used to monitor the hate group websites, but since the law is too broad, it is rarely held up in court. The hate group websites do, however, have a large enough following that there is legislation being formed to specifically target the material on the sites. Despite the highly offensive nature of hate group websites, the sites should not be censored because the right to free speech must be preserved. In this paper we will define what is considered to be hateful content; why this hateful content should be protected; what else can be done to monitor this material on the Internet; and when are the people cr... ... middle of paper ... ...nt rights in order to completely abolish the views of a entire nation to stop the ignorant views of a much smaller portion of our great democratic nation. Works Cited 1.

The Concerns of Internet Censorship As a professional Internet publisher and avid user of the Internet, I have become concerned with laws like the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) that censor free speech on the Internet. By approving the CDA, Congress has established a precedent which condones censorship regulations for the Internet similar to those that exist for traditional broadcast media. Treating the Internet like broadcast media is a grave mistake because the Internet is unlike any information medium that has been created. My concerns about Internet censorship prompted me to write "Internet Censorship is Absurd and Unconstitutional." In the essay, I outline why I believe that the Internet should not be censored in any way for two reasons.