Censorship on the internet is something we hear about nearly everyday. Whether it is in the news or some internet service provider who mentions parental controls in one of their commercials, censorship is something we are all familiar with. The ongoing debate seems to be if the internet should or should not be restricted. Some feel that the internet's freedom is somewhat anarchic, but at the same time very democratic (Weiner, par.1). The internet is an example of what our government is based on but at the same time represents a lack of organization with no established laws. So where should we draw the line with regulations?
People want to have freedom. Throughout history, people have fought for the freedoms we now have in the United States. People have fought to be free from tyranny and segregation. Our "Founding Fathers" wrote a constitution that gave us the freedom to say what we want and write what we choose. Many other countries today do not even have these freedoms. Yet, everyday we hear something new about people not wanting their children to see the "evil" sides of the world. Parents complain about their children having access to pornography and other "harmful" material. Because society objected to the violence and sex on television, rules and regulations were created. In the past, books have been banned because they were offensive to some people or the government felt the books were corruptive in some way.
This only leaves people with the internet to express their true views and beliefs. The internet creates a network where people from all over the world can share their ideas and knowledge. It provides people with what they were once masked from. With this tool, people can access valuable information at the click of a mouse and without searching through outdated libraries. Who would ever want to loose these privileges?
Governments have tried in many ways to block the youth from viewing the "darker corners" of the web (Buckley, par.2). In "Internet: The Lost Fight" by William F. Buckley, Jr. a few attempts are mentioned. The author mentions the Communication Decency Act that was put forward in 1996 but was eventually turned down by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. Buckley also reveals how efforts have been made to block the youth from viewing porn but have had little success in doing so. He even follows up questioning that if the Founding Fathers lived during the age of the internet, that the Constitution may have been worded differently (Buckley, par.
The government believes it is much easier to control a society full of dumb people, so they put up an law to restrict books from the public. “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the constitution says, but everyone made equal... A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind”. Books are dangerous, not because they physically are, but because of the knowledge they contain can bring about any opponent. Ideas and knowledge makes people question how things are, and allows them to see all the problems within this corrupted
Deciding on who makes the rules for censorship is tricky though. Should the power be in the people or in the government? Censorship should be permitted in limited cases… only a local government - preferably a school district - should be in charge with decisions to censor” (Wilson 6). While censorship is needed, people such as parents should decide how much or how little their child is censored such as what movies they watch or what internet sites they can go on. In Fahrenheit 451, the government controls all. As Bradbury notes in his work, “And then the government, seeing how advantageous it was to have people reading about only passionate lips and the fist in stomach, circled the situation with your fire-eaters” (Bradbury 85). With censorship, the government could go too far, which is why it is a good idea to let every state or county create their own rules and guidelines for censorship. As kids get older, censorship should be slightly let up.They should be old enough to make their own decisions. Wilson states,“Much of the debate over censorship revolves around protection children… School district trustees much balance their responsibility to ensure everyone is granted access to the best education… however, some materials are inappropriate for small children” (Wilson 6). Censorship should be used to protect children. Not just from websites, but websites with people that could harm them on it. Yet there comes an age
We live in an overprotective society, where people try to control other people’s lives from things that they find explicit. Many parents believe that by sheltering their kids from offensive things it will keep them safe. But, trying to live life as if there is always sunshine and no rain turns out to be a big disappointment. The banning of books has a negative effect on children and adults alike, as it can shelter children from real life situations, and revokes the rights of the people. Although people believe in banning books that contain vulgar language and profanity to help their children, it can actually hurt the child and can be considered unconstitutional.
The internet damages us, people have lost their ability to read full articles and don’t fully understand what they read and because of this,our natural intelligence will never be the same with the internet around, thinking for us.
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.
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.
The Internet, with its unlimited access to any kind of information, is today’s most commonly used tool used worldwide. This poses some complex questions that challenge liberal and conservative alike, the most recent defenders of the First Amendment, and the most passionate exponents of censorship. With the rush by our President to make the Internet accessible to every U.S. student, the problem extends far beyond libraries and into our schools. This censorship problem would seem to have no easy solution. First, let's assume pornography is a bad thing. It encourages poor behavior and disrespect toward women in general. Yes, any respectable human being would agree with that. But why does this have to be a problem in our schools? Isn't it the responsibility of the parents to guide their children? Isn’t it up to the parents to teach their kids stuff like that is morally wrong? Kids should already know behavior like that does not belong at school. Schools have a fear of this happening so they take action and put a block on all key words that are linked with pornography. Great, now how will students learn about subjects such as bre...
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.
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.
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
Censorship is Necessary to Protect Children from the Internet Do you want our future generations being exposed to violence, hate, sexuality, illegal substances, and false information, and then one day think it would be cool or alright to try these things? The internet is filled with dangerous information, that children should never have the freedom to access. Children learn from example, and if they search, watch, or read something on the web that could be potentially dangerous, they could be influenced or curious and think that it would be alright to imitate one day. If our children now are viewing these things, it could mean that future generations could grow to be more violent and our world could become more dangerous than it already is today. Censorship is necessary if we plan on having our kids grow up in the safest environment possible.
One Source Cited This paper will elaborate the reasons why minors deserve legislative protection while using the internet, and how to implement this protection.
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
Most of the Internet regulation is imposed by the Government in an effort to protect the best interest of the general public and is concerned with some form of censorship.