The internet is a dynamic environment, with new websites appearing every day, some of them inappropriate for children. The internet filters blacklist only has 2025 websites listed to this day. There is a huge amount of human labour required in order to add new websites to this list. The huge amount of labour required to maintain this filter is very prohibitive, it just makes this filter a waste of taxpayers money. Your hard earned money!
First, children can be protected from accidentally viewing pornography through more convenient solutions than a law requiring Internet filters. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence showing the negative effects of adult pornography on the adult population to warrant an Internet filter that restricts all Internet pornography websites. Thirdly, the first amendment rights given to every citizen would be violated by a law calling for Internet filters. Finally, Internet filters may not only block adult pornography websites, but may also block legal and informative websites. To protect children from accidentally viewing adult pornography on the Internet, a law that requires Internet filters is not the best solution.
The people and not the government should have the right to choose on what to view on the internet. Consequently, control of the internet by a government often leads to invasion of privacy of internet users. Can the government read your emails? Apparently it can. Most governments monitor the emails of unsuspecting users with... ... middle of paper ... ...ood reason to censor the internet, but there are simpler ways to solve this problem without involvement of the government.
Under the proposed legislation all RC content, content that has been refused classification by ACMA (Australia communications and media authority) as well as X18+ content will be on the blacklist. This shows that the government has changed the filter’s goals when it became clear that internet crime won’t be stopped and is instead offering a “protect the children” reason for the filter. The proposed internet filter is not only a flawed concept, but an expensive one. If implemented, it will do little to nothing to prevent online crime. The cost of the filter far outweighs any benefit and the potential for abuse in the future is frightening.
The people that worry about their kids and make the Government worry about it and pass legislation on censorship are the people that are too damn lazy to buy Internet Censorship software programs for their PERSONAL computers, NOT the entire United States’. The Government wants censorship, but a segment of the Internet’s population does not. The Communi... ... middle of paper ... ... the user would exercise control of the information available on interactive media instead of the government or network operators. The CDA criminalizes "knowingly transmit[ing] or mak[ing] available" information on interactive media that can be accessed just as easily by wondering the isles of a book store. It also criminalizes "indecent" speech that is transmitted electronically between two consenting adults.
Those that are against the government’s interference and monitoring of the Internet believe that they are entitled to privacy and the freedom of self-expression. The Clinton Administration wanted to enable a way to trace potential threats to the United States Government by accessing confidential information, tapping into conversations through the Internet and phone calls. “While privacy faces threats from both private and government intrusions, the existing motley patchwork of privacy laws and practices fails to provide comprehensive protection. Instead, it causes confusion that fuels a sense of distrust and ske... ... middle of paper ... ...at for years without many censorships and regulations. 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.
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.
Ximenes 4 There are also ways in which government or other agencies may provide Internet control without censorship. For example, it may be necessary to implement laws which require of all Internet servers that provide pornography to have their sites’ names clearly stating the content of the material about to be seen. This would at least prevent children from accessing such sites accidentally. By doing that the government would be helping the parents who don't want their kids to see that kind of material, but would not be interfering on the right to free speech that the Constitution assure us to have. In summary, censoring the Internet falls into the controversial category of censoring free speech.
It is worth mentioning that as an opponent of censorship, I certainly do not encourage the violence and aggression that can be found online; big digital companies in particular are an arena for demonstrations of offenses, provided that they enable anyone to post their thoughts publically while hiding behind their computer. I... ... middle of paper ... ...e are matters that should never occur in a child’s life. While some people claim that censorship completely solves these issues, this is not the case. It is the parents’ job to make sure that their kid is not exposed to these kinds of websites. Besides, it is possible for them to use browsers that will edit out offensive and inappropriate material for young users.
Everything that goes online can be accessed by others, and this makes it difficult for managers to identify matters and practices they should be concerned with, including consumer’s privacy (Ccnmtl.columbia.edu, 2014). Failing to protect consumer’s privacy could lead to hacking and intrusion of an individual’s personal information (Khosrow-Pour, 2002; 2). For example, social applications such as WhatsApp and Viber are becoming increasingly popular. The instant message Viber has failed to protect the user’s privacy. It has been hacked recently by the Syrian Electronic Army (“Viber free download” 2014) despite the technical measures used to protect user’s data.