The overarching idea of the internet and hate speech is that it will spread if not censored and it will give a false idea that speech that is hateful is ok. Sean McElwee, Writer and researcher for the Huffington Post, said that “...the freedom of the press should be governed by a very strict prohibition of all and every anonymity.” However, with the Internet, the public dialogue has moved online, where hate speech is easy and anonymous. This leads to the thought of the hate speech spreading to them bullying others with these hateful ideas. A study by Karen Kaplan a writer for the Los Angeles Times found that Kids that are bullied or physically abused have a 60% higher rate to develop mental health issues. The direct link between bullying and mental health is increasingly real and it will continue without the censorship of hate speech on the internet. But the reality, there are better ways to stop hate speech without removing free speech.
This protocol was the controversial term Internet Censorship. The question that has been fought for the beginning of this new implementation, especially to those countries that relies heavily on internet access and commodities, is that: Is Internet Censorship really a good idea? Did it really provided changes and security on the people as they exposed themselves to the impending threats of internet surfing and other activities? How about the hampered freedom of expression? Did the benefits outweigh the risks in this particular situation?
I would ask, is the use of such e-mail messages ethical? Are they providing a service of any value? There are several ethical implications that I wish to take a look at regarding the use of such e-mail messages, as well as the ethical analysis of suppressing such activities in the United States and in the United Kingdom. USA and the UK Crack Down on Spam The United States has already be... ... middle of paper ... ...g the level of good arising from that censorship, since it involves suppressing freedom of speech. In summary, e-mail spam has grown to be a problem that the world is feeling the effects of, and if some sort of agreeable compromise is not met that satisfies both electronic merchants and general consumers, this problem will only continue to get worse.
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.
The dependance on the internet has become of great importance in today's world, and so imposing regulations and limits to it creates a controversial polemic worldwide. Since the Digital Copyright Millennium Act, internet became more restricted. However, this wasn't so much of a problem because, firstly the internet usage wasn't as common as nowadays, and secondly because the new internet regulations are far more restrictive if not totally limiting to the freedom of the internet. SOPA and PIPA are copyright legislations that fight against online piracy by blocking access to websites judged as insecure, and seek court orders against websites "enabling or facilitating piracy" (BBC, 2012:1). It is war between individuals fighting for global freedom and authorities striving for global security against crimes of copyright infringement.
What if using a social media platform such as facebook could be harmful to the user? People view social media outlets to be useful and entertaining, but the truth in the matter is that social media outlets are harmful. When people get involved with social media, be it facebook, twitter, instagram or snapchat, they are signing up for a commitment that provides more bad things than good. Once users have latched onto the social media of their choosing, they begin to suffer from multiple things that are directly a result of using the outlet. Although there are many negative things about using a social media platform, the main concerns boil down to social media acting as a distraction and being too time consuming.
Behind SOPA: Copyright, Censorship and Free speech At the beginning of 2012, a series of coordinated protests occurred online and offline against Stop Online Piracy Act Bill (SOPA) that expands U.S. law enforcement’s ability to combat online copyright infringement. As this protest involved many influential websites like Google and Wikipedia, it certainly draws national attention on SOPA. Whether censorship should be used online against online materials infringing property rights, as included in SOPA, is the controversial issue. Even though SOPA eventually was terminated by the Congress, things behind SOPA cause further debates. The relationship between censorship, free speech and copyrights in this bill is worth discussing.
Consequently, without the nation-imposed constraint... ... middle of paper ... ...ool, the public even the nation might suffer inestimable disasters. Taking these arguments into consideration, I believe that citizen do have the right freedom speech and expression through any media, besides, the freedom speech on the Internet has been examined on the promotion of democratization and civilization. However, these benefits based on the basis of rational, considerate and unmalicious remarks on the Internet. The liberty of speech is not the privilege to raise any comments, include those attribute negative influence to the public. Therefor, the only ladder to assure the effective management of Internet is a nation-impose censorship.
Levy and Wyer agree society’s privacy has been compromised while using social media formats; both writers use similar strategies such as language, logos, and pathos to sway the audience to their respective viewpoints. Both articles use highly charged language to create an emotional response from their readers. Levy uses words like revealing, exposed and intimate making the reader feel they are baring themselves for the world to see. Levy catches the reader’s attention when he asks the question, “What could be more revealing than a list of one’s search queries?” Readers might become paranoid with this question prompting them to wonder who examines their search logs. Levy causes the reader to feel exposed declaring, “The intimacy of our searches has led…other privacy experts to urge companies like Google [and others] not to retain such logs” which shows that even experts feel privacy laws have been breached and are imploring them to change their policies.
The site makes it hard for the Internet user to say no to being tracked. Mitchell warns the reader to take more consideration into what information they are giving away and that “privacy is not to be taken for granted” (Mitchell, 2013, p. 26). Getting information from the Internet would mean tra... ... middle of paper ... ..., websites and online marketers do find ways around users’ precautions to gain personal information. There are many people out there who want to use personal information like credit card numbers or addresses to cause harm to others. These cases are the extremely negative ones that people want to and should avoid.