The government is proposing a new internet filter that claims to protect children from inappropriate content, and other content that is found on the internet. Today with all the advances with technology there is still no effective way to censor the internet. Internet censorship can also restrict other people's freedom. What would happen if the government said that they were going to block an opposition party website, or a website to a topic that they are opposed too. With this proposal to filter the internet politicians choose what they want to censor, not a judge!
The solution to keeping kids from getting into inappropriate websites is to monitor their access, use filtering software, and teach them morals. Censoring the Internet can only be harmful to everyone else who uses it. Works Cited Cleaver, Cathleen A. “Cyberchaos: Not First Amendment’s Promise.” http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/cda/cleaver-cyberchaos.html “Current Internet Censorship Efforts.” [Online]. Available www.epic.org/freespeech/censorship.
Besides, it is possible for them to use browsers that will edit out offensive and inappropriate material for young users. This is why cyberspace surveillance should start and end at home. Extensive censorship will not directly help stopping the acts; it will not help find the criminals. As a matter of fact, it makes it even harder for them to get caught. Indeed, often data contained in the content such as the IP address is crucial for establishing the identity of the offender.
Internet Censorship There is a growing debate about censoring the internet. Some people think that the internet is protected under the first ammendment and cannot be censored. Others think 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.
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.
Many proponents of Internet censorship want strict control over this new information medium. Proponents of Internet censorship such as Senator Jim Exon (D-NE), co-author of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), are in favor of putting strict laws into place regulating the Internet in order to protect children: "The Decency Act stands for the premise that it is wrong to provide pornography to children on computers just as it is wrong to do it on a street corner or anywhere else" (Exon). These proponents suggest creating laws for the Internet similar to those now in place for television and radio. Those strongly opposing Internet regulations, such as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), assert that the Internet is not li... ... middle of paper ... ...1997): n. pag. Online.
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.
The regulation or censorship of the Internet will make it difficult for people to express their mind openly, block even more useful sites for students, and deny American citizens their first amendment right to free speech. One reason many people are against censorship is because it hinders the thoughts and ideas of their minds. Internet regulation will tend to curb the freedom of expression, which is perhaps one of the most conspicuous factors that are instrumental in the success (Manohar, 2011). This is true, the Internet provides a voice to people who otherwise wouldn’t have a say. Through websites, forums, and blogs the average man or woman can express his or her opinion about the latest sports game, the news, politics etc.
Besides taking an extraordinary amount of money and time, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech rights that are included in democratic constitutions and international laws.11 It would be a breach of the First Amendment. The Constitution of the United States of America declares that 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 redr ess of grievances 12 Therefore it would be unconstitutional for any sort of censorship to occur on the Internet and affiliated services. Despite the illegality, restrictions on Internet access and content are increasing worldwide under all forms of government. In France, a co untry where the press generally has a large amount of freedom, the Internet has recently been in the spotlight. A banned book on the health history of former French president Francois Mitterrand was republished electronically on the World Wide Web (WWW).