I'll argue yes, because I believe that if an Internet filter that was created with the intent of supporting freedom of speech, I would want to support it. A lot of arguments have been raised about this topic already in several other debates, especially in regard to the Australian Government's plan to implement a national Internet filter, as well as a comparison to the Internet filters already in use, such as those of China and Iran. What I propose is that a filter should be made that differentiates with China and Iran's filters, one that allows for an open, honest opinion on what should be filtered, what should be provided with a warning black-screen, and what should remain 100% open.

For starters, this filter would need to be created to suit different environments, such as homes, schools and workplaces. This doesn't necessarily need to decline the definition of a "national" Internet filter either, because it would still be a mandatory choice to install the censor. All that we would really be doing is customizing the filter to suit different situations, such as research access for home and school, and work-related sites for workplaces.

At home, parents are the ones who have been rescued. Parents who are working full-time jobs who try to make an effort in protecting their child when they are online, but are unable to make a good effort, are able to rest assured that their child is given access to mature and safe sites, and are protected from sites such as those filled with pornography and harmful software. As for those parents who really don't care about what their child is doing when online, this is an entirely different situation. In this case, the parent should be the one who is to be blamed, rather than blaming the censor, because they should be putting in any time and effort that they can.

In workplaces, we can evidently see an increase in productivity, as workers will not be distracted by gaming and social networking sites. This will allow for a more productive input, which will allow for the company to produce more good work, which will ultimately put more money back into the economy.

The key benefit of having the government handle the Internet censor is that there will be a larger amount of supervisors who are constantly on the lookout for any problems that the censor may be experiencing or causing, as well as the possibility of any individuals or groups who may be bypassing the censor.

Not everything is perfect, and naturally, there are going to be a few bumps and bruises, but an Internet filter can be created as something incredibly beneficial to an entire country.

That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we should not seek to do so, it is extremely difficult already to prevent the sale of snuff movies or hard core pornography but governments do so because it is deemed to be of societal importance. A more relevant difficulty is how anonymous everything on the internet is which gives pornographers and criminals the opportunity to abuse the medium.

The only situation where anything should be censored I believe is if issues of expected privacy of a private individual are violated.

Otherwise no. I'm against all censorship of any kind.

yes there should be internet censorship.. if in case in some public's home there is no TV but there is computer , for watching news movies etc.... they can only watch in computer and if censorship only is not there then how can the people see or hear that what is happening in their city or town or which movie has been released........

For school computers, to block porn. For radical hate speakers brainwashing masses. For misinformation.

On these conditions, yes.