Should the government control the Internet?
The Internet has become a growing source of entertainment and information over the past years. As more and more people become familiar with the internet, the potential of its contents grows rapidly, at an uncontrollable rate. Why uncontrollable? Because in some cases there are no restriction to what can be put one the internet, what can be viewed on the internet, or who can view what is on the internet. Just about anything and everything can be found on the internet. With something such as the internet, which contains virtually an infinite amount of space, more is being added than taken away. Therefore with the growing amount of users, the contents grows as well. Different people use the internet for different things with no worries, because they have the right to. But should everybody have these privileges? With all these people using the Internet, shouldn't there be a restriction on what can and cannot be seen on the internet? Some answer yes, some answer no. For many reasons there is no determinant of who is right or wrong.
It definitely would help
Side Score: 1
|
 |
It would be a disaster
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
The major argument for censorship that has accumulated the most attention deals with the protection of children. Statistics say that "75% of children ages 14-17 use the Internet and 65% of children ages 10-13 use the Internet" (NTIA). Children can access the Internet at home, at school, at public libraries or at a friend's house. There is so much indecent material on the Internet, such as pornography that children should not be exposed to. How many children have already been exposed to this type of material on the internet alone? That remains uncertain, however it takes merely curiosity driven from TV programs, or even a friend, for an underage child to go on the internet and view material beyond what is meant for them to see. These sites, while they may come with an X-rated warning to not enter unless over 18, are still accessible to children, or whomever wishes to enter. Given the fact that there are warnings on such sites, there is still no guarantee that the viewer is of legal age. Children who aren’t of age, are most likely not mature enough to be exposed to such material, therefore the potential of permanently affecting a child’s morality remains high.However there always remains two sides to every story. In this case,why not to censor the internet. Side: It definitely would help
|
2
points
1
point
The government of the United States? No. Even if governments could censor what their citizens see, no one should be allowed to take down sites that might be legal in other countries. How would you feel if China took down megaupload? But should everybody have these privileges? Rights, not privileges. The burden of proof is on the aggressor: the one who interferes: the government that takes away negative liberty. Side: It would be a disaster
When dealing with censorship, another important thing that must be kept in mind is personal privacy. Not all material on the internet is meant to be pornography. Some people keep their personal material on the internet and share it with certain individuals. For example, videos or pictures shared to distant friends, it is only way of sharing, given their geographical location. There should not be any censorship for someone’s personal material because they are the only ones that should be viewing it anyway. If all private material were to be censored at all times, it would most definitely not be considered private. Personally, I believe that the Internet should not be censored. Freedom of speech was given to us by the Constitution. The rights have been ours for centuries and should not be taken away today, in modern society. I think that some kind of compromise could be reached between censoring the Internet and protecting children. Side: It would be a disaster
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
