Debate Info

It's their responsibility. They shouldn't police the net.
Debate Score:45
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 It's their responsibility. (4)
 They shouldn't police the net. (10)

Debate Creator

xaeon(1093) pic

Should US ISPs be forced to block websites that carry images of child sex abuse?

Are ISPs simply a carrier?

It's their responsibility.

Side Score: 16

They shouldn't police the net.

Side Score: 29
4 points

In 99% of circumstances, I think that Internet companies should not bear responsibility for how individuals communicate with other individuals online.

However, in the case of graphic and egregious child sex abuse images, I think they should bear responsibility. They should also be required to file a report with the FBI.

Side: It's their responsibility.
3 points

Policing the internet can get pretty sticky, but no website is above the law, and if an ISP knows of a website trafficking illegal material, it should be reported.

Side: It's their responsibility.
2 points

Yes, reported. Not blocked. If anything the free flow of information allows you to find these individuals even quicker.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed
3 points

You think a commercial firm should have authority over the people that pay them to be there?

No, I think if anything, that they should file reports to a government agency...and that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. If a site is found, file it, send the information to the FBI. Don't give the business any authority because it's not the business's... business. That should be between the law and the offender.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
1 point

I agree, this is an egregious act that should not be tolerated. The companies that facilitate the routing of the information and provide the medium for which it is transmitted should also bear some responsibility for policing what is sent through it, especially in the case of child sex abuse.

Side: It's their responsibility.
1 point

yes, but only under one circumstance, they actually find a way to determine child porn artificially, and just find a way to filter that out itself.

seriously, i'm gonna find it hard to get into the FBI because i've downloaded child porn without even knowing it (fuckin' limewire). and i've seen plenty of it on 4chan.

but, if we just have people themselves finding child porn and blocking that shit out, no... it's dangerous and doesn't really help people in my situation. all it does is create internet police.

Side: It's their responsibility.
11 points

I am torn over this issue. Whilst I feel it is justifiable and right to block images of child sex abuse, I am hesitant for ISPs to put the technology into place that allows them to uniquely identify and block specific websites.

One of the main arguments against ISPs reporting file sharers, blocking certain content and bringing into place a multiple tier internet is the logistics behind it.

Once the technology is in place (bought about by a very justifiable and right cause), what is to then stop this technology being used elsewhere? The government can begin legislating that torrent sites should be blocked; and guess what, the technology to do it is already in place.

So, my argument is that ISPs should ALWAYS remain simply a carrier, performing absolutely no policing of the net. This is because putting the technology in place allows it to then be taken advantage of for less justifiable causes.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
1 point

Suppose the technology to block certain content was in place. What would your position be then? I agree with your argument, but I can't help but feel it skirts the harder and more important question of whether or not ISPs should block child porn.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
4 points

I think ISP's should just act as gateways... as soon as they are given the power to police the internet, you will see a lot of things change, and to who's liking?

Torrents are already being watched by comcast, and people are erroneously losing their bandwidth (That they rightfully pay for) because comcast seems to think that they are torrenting.

There are other ways to do this and I don't think the ISP should have anything to do with it.

Their business isn't to protect people from becoming immoral or doing socially deviant things so why should they block these sorts of sites... also, it would become harder to find the people trying to access this sort of material in the first place.

Also, I think If a person's going to do something like this, they will do it one way or another.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.

Where does it end? If you stop some websites with your censorship wouldn't you then be obliged to stop some p2p, and then go after and the rest of the newsgroup infrastructure? We are talking about the free flow of information here. Think of the big picture for one moment and realize what the Internet has done to the world, and we've barely the hindsight to fully grasp it. If we give it away piece by piece then it will just turn into Television. This isn't about Kiddy Porn. That's just the hot button issue that's been picked to help take control and make you pay another toll for information because they know they can squeeze it out of you. Law enforcement is changing itself to handle the new era of cyber crime and it will continue to get better. Stop shitting your pants for one moment and absorb the BIG PICTURE.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.

I am rather worried about a few things:

1. Open websites that do not monitor content stringently (or cannot effectively due to their size) such as 4chan, Myspace, Youtube could find themselves in huge amounts of trouble.

2. It is fairly easy for experienced hackers to load child pornographic images into your computer, hiding them without your knowledge.

3. I am also worried if I stop at an open website and view an image containing child porn that I am in effect a criminal. In many cases (especially on sites like it is easy for images to be hidden within the hundreds of thousands of images posted every day.

4. The owner and operator of a mall is not responsible for criminal activity on its property. It has to allow police officers in when in the course of their duties but I don't see why it is up to the private entity to act as policemen nor why they would be liable if they do not act as such. I think it puts too much of the law into the hands of private entities, if you ask me.

Would you rather be policed by the FBI or Myspace admins? Which do you think would do a better job? Which is limited by the constitution, warrants, mirandas, etc?

I think it's more important to use those websites to find the people who are making and distributing this material, rather than attacking them outright. Only sites specifically dedicated to child pornography should be attacked, and that seems to already be the policy.

I don't know why we need additional protections or e-weaponry/laws to combat this blight.

I mean, think about it, do we really want these sorts of people to go further underground? What other type of criminal would set up shop publicly and for all the world to see? Would you like to play a game of Whack A Mole or try finding needles in haystacks?

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
1 point

ISPs aren't police and they have no executive or judiciary power in society.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.
1 point

It's hard to be against something that seems to at a glance be a deterent to something so heinous.

However, I do not believe the interenet is in any way an inabler of this...

Lame I know, but it's not as simple as it sounds.

That is, I do not really think that, by reporting these offenses it does anything to prevent future offenses, disourage current offenders, or catch past offendees (that a word? I don't know.)

Maybe it catches some, but they would win in court. Just like the pedifiles on that 60 minutes show because of that little thing called entrapment.

It basically takes a retarded lawyer not to win.

Then on the flip side, while next to nothing is being accomplished to close the window on those peeping tom pedifuc^s.

It leaves a giant window open (presidence) for gov to come in and say "I don't like this site because it supports gay marriage... or thinks 911 was a conspiracy... etc." take your pick, there's now a pattern established for them to block pretty much anything they choose so long as they can get some kind of mass majority support.

As I think many on this arguement know, the mass majority isn't always correct.

That said, again, it seems awful tempting to just go after it, since it's right there. I don't think it would end up how it first seems it would though. Little to nothing would be actually accomplished.

Side: They shouldn't police the net.