Freedom of Speech & Censorship on the Internet
Introduction
With more and more frequency the newspapers are reporting instances of school children distributing disks of pornographic images which they have downloaded from the net and recently a university student was found to be operating such a site for material. On November 11, an Associated Press release (Phillips,1994) reported that Carnegie Mellon University had decided to block its users from accessing sexually explicit materials through the Internet: the university's president feared that the university could be prosecuted under state pornography laws if it did not control the access. Within the last week Towson State has prevented access to all of the alt.* groups on the Usenet which include alt.binaries.pictures.* which has sexually explicit pictures. Towson State has also included a warning on their home page that there may be pornographic material on the Internet. Pornographic material is not the only material to be found on the net which can raise questions of censorship and control: discussion of racial, political, religious and sexual topics all run the risk of offending someone, somewhere, leading to demands for control of the Internet. The question of censorship may also be raised in some unexpected places: one newsgroup is the rec.humor list, which is a collection of jokes submitted to subscribers. There are straightforwardly rude jokes but others are politically incorrect, focusing on sexual stereotypes, mothers-in-law, women and so on.
It has been suggested (Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1994) that discretionary warning labels could be attached to potentially offensive material. With warning labels like those on records this may serve to whet appetites. Warning labels involve some sort of judging and then the question is raised as to who shall be the judge. The Internet is world-wide so would the First Amendment apply in Germany? The material on the Internet which is grossly offensive by any standards, such as paedophile material, is extremely difficult to find because of its small amounts. Of the 976 obscenity cases handled between 1991 and 1993 only 11 involved computer files, while 0.3% of the obscene material seized by Customs staff in 1992-93 were computer items (Cornwall, 1994). This paper considers the question of censorship on the Internet - does it exist, in what form, should it exist and what should be censored?
The Internet
To understand many of the questions raised an understanding of how the Internet originated is important.
Every year, there are about 100 million Sharks killed, ultimately for its commercial success. Their fins are used as the main ingredient for a dish so-called Shark soup. However, many are unaware of the actual importance of Sharks' existence on Earth. They do a number of things to control and balance aquatic life down below, which in return affects how we live on the surface. Sharks have existed in our world for over 400 million years, if they were to suddenly disappear for industrial purposes, much problems will be encountered throughout the world. We must preserve the lives of Sharks, for many reasons most importantly that shark hunting is morally wrong, it may provide economic failure in a given time, and it may serve a critical unbalance of a healthy environmental state.
The bull shark may be responsible for many shark attacks in the world but I believe that we have no right to kill them. Sharks are very important to animals food cycles and if the food cycles get messed up it can greatly effect the world. In fact, the bull shark is more vulnerable to human impact due to their ability to live in fresh and salt water but many sharks that are killed are for either shark fin soup or their liver oil. The sharks liver oil has many uses now but it started as a machine lubricant. Another way that sharks die is by recreational fishing. The sharks can get caught up in the fishermen's nets and eventually suffocate and die. As an environmental community, I feel like we need to inform people about shark habits and how to keep sharks safe. The water is their home and we are
When most people hear the word "shark", the image of a vicious killing machine pops into their head. They picture something out of the movie Jaws, where a massive Great White shark terrorizes an entire beach and eats dozens of people. However, this fictional story is nothing more than Hollywood entertainment. In the real world, the tables are turned. Humans are the ones who kill sharks, and not just by the dozens. It has been estimated that over 100 million sharks are killed every year by humans (http://www.iflscience.com). Some estimates claim that the actual number of sharks killed every year could be as high as 273 million (http://www.iflscience.com). In this research paper, I will inform you of the many ways that sharks are being killed,
Everyone knows someone who is afraid of sharks. They might even advocate for the killing of sharks when they hurt someone or wonder why they exist on the first place. Every summer, shark attacks are a hot topic. There are news articles every summer about at least one person spotting a shark close to shore, and it seems like every other summer there is a blockbuster film about surviving a shark attack. Everyone knows that sharks are predators, but not everyone knows that sharks are on the decline. This is because of many reasons such fishing, and specific shark killings. Sharks are essential to our marine ecosystems, and the continued culling of them can cause the extinction of the species as well as a devastated ecosystem within our oceans.
In 2015 only 59 shark attacks have occurred around the world compared to the millions of sharks killed by humans every year. Due to these accidental shark attacks people tend to think that sharks, especially Great Whites are evil creatures with malice intentions when attacks do occur; but, on the contrary that is wrong. Sharks are not the only beautiful and unique creatures in the ocean, they also play a vital role in our ecosystem; however, due to human interference they might not be around much longer, through awareness sharks can be protected from endangerment.
Sharks kill an average of about 12 humans per year. Humans kill an average of about 11,417 sharks per hour. Unfortunately, that number may not stop growing unless action is taken. Shark slaughter is becoming an ever expanding issue that could have devastating effects if it is not stopped. As a result of a tremendous increase of demand in shark fins in recent years, sharks are being finned and thrown back into the water where they are left to suffer an excruciating death which can take days to occur. Not only is the act cruel, but it also disrupts the natural ecosystem and may cause irreparable damage. Due to all of these effects, shark slaughter needs to be stopped, sooner than later.
Great White Sharks play an important role in the ocean, and it is their home territory. We, humans, intrude their home and we run our own risk of being attacked. Due to the sharks being a skill, natural predator of the ocean, its only normal for them to attack humans. Therefore it is not entirely the sharks fault, it is mainly the humans, which is why I choose to conserve the animal. (CONSERVE)
Great White Sharks can be found virtually anywhere in the world but they tend to prefer temperate waters off the coasts of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the California and the eastern U.S., and Mexico. In its natural environment, this shark has only one enemy, the Orca whale. However, the shark's most threatening predator is humans. Great White Sharks have a monstrous reputation with society due to the sensationalized media that accompanies them. Sharks are killed for numerous reasons through commercial fishing, sport fishing, or for body parts such as fins. An estimated seventy million sharks are killed annually due to trade and many more sharks are also killed accidentally in fishermen's nets (Shark Conservation Through Legislation, 2001, http). Trade for fins, teeth, and jaws also result in thousand...
Sharks have been on this earth for nearly 450 billion years. To put that into perspective, the first modern humans date back to about 60,000 years ago ("Our Mission: To save Sharks and Mantas”). Since then, both humans and sharks have evolved into the predatory mammals they are today. However, with the quick development of humans, civilization and technology, humans have not been able to fully understand the ways of sharks, although the motives of other human celebrities have been easy to understand and decipher. Because shark attacks have been becoming more televised, and sharks have been known to be more of a “threat” to humans, shark research foundations, such as the Shark Research Institute and the Pelagic Shark Research Foundation, have been created to help give an understanding to these creatures. Over 100 million sharks are being killed each year, and there is a counter on the Bite-Back Shark and Marine Conservation website. As one spends more time on the home page, the number on the counter is constantly increasing, showing how many sharks are slaughtered in the year to come (“Bite-Back – Shark and Marine Conservation”). Even with research to show that sharks are valuable to the ocean and vulnerable, there are people that think otherwise (“The Pelagic Shark ...
Did you know that sharks have been here longer than us humans? Sharks have been swimming the oceans for hundreds to millions of years before the first humans are said to have appeared on land. Unfortunately the shark population has been decreasing due to the shark fishing market. People have often thought sharks as predators to the human race; but truthfully, we should fear living in a world with no sharks. Occasionally, over 100 million sharks are killed by humans. These sharks are killed for their fins most of the time, which are considered to be one of the most expensive seafood delicacies in China. However the ways of attaining these fins have caused controversies all over the world.
"Internet Censorship." What does this mean to us? What is restricted? Censorship is summarily defined as the suppression of objectionable material. That means that material such as pornography, militant information, offensive language, anti-religion, and racism would be restricted in use. Freedom would not only be restricted to material placed on the web, but also what you could access, and where you could explore. Should the right of Freedom of Speech be taken away from us on the Internet? Having stated this, should there be any restrictions and if so, what's the limit of censorship?
The Wex Legal Dictionary describes the term obscenity as “lewd, filthy, or disgusting words or pictures,” speech that is not protected by the First Amendment (CIT1). Another way one could define this term is words, images, or actions that “offend the sexual morality of its viewers (CIT2).” It is perhaps unsurprising that, in the vast expanse of today’s Internet, where anyone in the world can upload whatever they please, words and images that fall under this category are quite common. Also unsurprising is the fact that there has been more than one court case involving this subject. Obscenity and the Internet often go hand in hand, and share an interesting past, present, and perhaps future.
Technology has provided our society with numerous innovations that have been created to improve the quality of life on a daily basis. One such innovation is the Internet. The access to a wide variety of information is perhaps the most valuable tool, as well as the most important tool, that we have entering the twenty-first century. There are virtually no limits on how much can be achieved through the use of the Internet. This is not, however, necessarily a good thing. Most people find that offensive material such as child pornography and hate-related propaganda can be viewed by people too easily via the Internet. While child pornography is a detestable subject, it does not have the sort of appeal that a hate group website does in that there are stricter guidelines preventing individuals from attaining child pornography material from the Internet. These stricter guidelines include the Communications Decency Act (1995), which forbids the use of the Internet for such purposes as attaining material of a child pornographic nature (Wolf, 2000). 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...
Imagine yourself to be a typical parent in this century. With very little time on your hands, your schedule is jammed tight: meals to fix, kids to get ready to school, getting yourself ready, a job to go to, pick up the kids, bills to pay, food to buy, etc. On one particular day, one of your children notifies you that once again they are going to the library to finish a school paper. No harm in that right? However, perhaps you would think differently if you knew your child wasn’t going to the library to merely finish his report, but to also look at pornography he had been introduced to on the internet. This is not only a reality at your local libraries, but also the topic of a long time debate in this country over responsible information access and censorship which has centered around the electronic access of documents. Society has proven intolerant of anything that hints of censorship due to the history of those who have tried to impose forms of extreme censorship–like Mcarthism, Hitler, and the like. The age of the 1960's and 1970's brought forth an era of liberation from restrictions and limitations within our own country.
In the fields of management and business, Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) has been a powerful and influential tool in order to motivate employees to perform productively. (Ejim, Esther, 2013). According to Armstrong (2011), SHRM refers to the way that the company use to approach their strategic goals through people with a combination of human resource policy and practices. The purpose of SHRM is to produce strategic capability that the organisation must ensure such that employees are skilled, committed, and well-motivated in order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, (Armstrong, 2011). Particularly, the organisation must be able to carefully plan strategic human resource ideas, aimed to increase the productivity.