Should there be internet censorship by governments?
Affirmative!
Side Score: 14
|
 |
Negative!
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
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. Side: Affirmative!
It should never be a government's duty to tell you what you can and cannot see or read or hear. Hasn't anyone ever heard of self-regulation? If you don't want to watch snuff, pornography, or whatever, it is your right to avoid it. Does it simply bother some people that others exist without hangups or opposition to these types of media? Are they just trying to say "My preference for media is special and it deserves to be imposed upon everyone else without their consent." If you don't like this type of media, there exist private, company-made filters which you can buy and install on your computer(s). http:// Do you realise that one of the ways a free society becomes authoritarian is when citizens like you decide to hand over freedoms and rights to their government instead of taking it upon themselves to regulate their own environment. One could say laziness helps create bad government. Side: Negative!
2
points
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. Side: Affirmative!
2
points
All of your examples can be solved by internet filters through the home or business, which are available. If parents don't want their children to look at bad sites, then they can block those sites, as can an employer. A national internet filter is not needed for something that people can already do. Who is going to pay for the monitors of the filter? Side: Negative!
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. Internet filters like these already exist. In addition to OpenDNS: http:// Government involvement just means you wish people to have no choice, that it be imposed upon them. In a free society you can simply choose to censor content for yourself, without involving bureaucracy. 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. The same arguments are made for China's internet filter. That it might not be perfect (they'd never admit it) but that the regulated flow of information is good for their country. That's really all you're advocating by placing the government in charge of an internet filter instead of the citizens, that the flow of information be monitored closely by an agency which benefits from a stable society (which means information which would cast doubt upon political parties, cause sedition, expose corruption, etc. would all be on the list of things to block). Why don't you advocate that government establish book filtering? Newspaper censorship? Television filters? It's the same thing. Side: Negative!
Yes Of coarse! I was molested as a child by a Gay man all because he had a big penis. I was unable to achieve at school I lost my self esteem, and now I am single after a failed marriage with children. He is happy with his life living with his boyfriend. I am suffering depression. he at the time had access to gay pornographic magazines and exploited me with those magazines. Most people who were abused as children end up angry and lost in life and 90% end up in jail or end up suiciding. And you want to tell me that the Government should not have censorship on the Internet! You probably don't have children and live a good sexual life! But there are those who are sexually confused and always angry All because of a selfish Pedophile with a Big Dick! Side: Affirmative!
1
point
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........ Side: Affirmative!
|
2
points
1
point
Option number one: Watch porn on the internet. Watch snuff films on the internet. Option number two: Watch porn on the television. Watch snuff films on the television. In the event that option number one, option number two, or both options number one and two are eliminated, I must resort to some form of degrading and possibly illegal act to view, participate in, and/or enjoy said acts. Laymen terms: If one doesn't see it some how, they are going to go out and see it for themselves, possibly committing a crime in the meantime. Side: Negative!
1
point
|
