Internet Censorship

Most who argue against censorship believe that it goes against a person’s right to freedom of speech. Within this argument, most people wonder “just when, and on what grounds, the state is justified in using its coercive powers to limit the freedom of individuals” (West). When thinking in this mindset, individuals tend to antagonize the government, because they come to believe that it suppresses their individuality and fail to consider the fact that it unites people who share its similar beliefs. As a result of the recent spike in technology and use of the Internet, the public must continually alter its definition of freedom of speech and expression. As the media offers more and more methods of communication, many of which are relatively self-regulated by users, more methods of expression develop, which may render other forms of expression obsolete, or even socially unacceptable (Qazi). Without understanding how much freedom of speech one is entitled to, one may never hope to defend that freedom if it ever comes under attack. Because technology develops so quickly that one definition will hardly suffice for a short period of time, people will find it increasingly difficult to understand how much right to expression they are allowed and will therefore fight for any and all that they may attain, never considering the benefits of censorship in the slightest. In America especially, people idealize the idea of democracy, the investigation of truth, and independence (Fieser). In

Government witness Howard Schmidt conceded under cross-examination that it is “highly unlikely” for anyone to come across sexually explicit information on the Internet by accident. Plaintiff witness Dr. Albert Vezza told the court about PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection), a new rating system designed to allow parents to control children’s access to the Internet without censorship. Dan

In the article “The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger?” written by Cathleen Cleaver presents a straightforward claim of the need for government laws to administer what is being displayed on the internet. The article begins with a few realistic examples of what is possible to occur to internet users when someone obtains a free entry to their confidential information in their computers. The point she addresses mostly throughout the article is how dangerous it is for children. The example she uses to demonstrate the danger it may have on children is that a pedophile could chat with your child, disguising as a “twelve-year-old.” They may establish an “online relationship” and arrange to meet someday after school, with the intention of molesting

The United States Constitution gives the American people their freedom so to speak. The Constitution outlines many things that other countries don’t offer their citizens such as freedom of speech, religion and the press. The First Amendment of the Constitutions guarantees that the United States people have rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion without the interference of the government. The Bible states in Deuteronomy 17: 18-19, “Now it shall come about when he sit on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him, and he shall read it, all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes”. These laws have been called into question on several different occasions. However, like anything else, there are some stipulations with these laws. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did shed some insight on the laws and how they can be interpreted. This paper will discuss the criminal statute issues, issues with the provisions of the Constitution, and the status of criminal prosecution for transmission of pornography over the internet. With the hopes of having a clearer understanding of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

    Ashcroft vs. ACLU, 00-1293, deals with a challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which Congress passed in 1998. The law, which is the subject of this essay, attempts to protect minors from exposure to Internet pornography by requiring that commercial adult websites containing "indecent" material that is "harmful to minors" use age-verification mechanisms such as credit cards or adult identification numbers.(Child)

According to the Communication Decency Act of 1996 the CDA prohibits the users from using the internet that provides obscene, offensive material. It restricted the minors, individuals under 18 years of age. The CDA consider use of such salacious material to be taken as crime if made available to the minors. But the CDA was found to be unconstitutional and too broad because it violated the first amendment, according to the Supreme Court the communication decency act was not limited to a commercial speech or entity rather it was a prohibition on whole group. An alternative internet censorship law was made known as Child online protection act of 1998, it was found to be much more limited than the CDA but it too was found to be unconstitutional.

He states that we cannot say, "the First Amendment is so sacrosanct that we must stand idly by while our children are inundated with pornography and smut on the Internet" (Exon 156).

The constitutionality of the two provisions enacted to protect minors from “indecent” and “patent offensive” on the internet were at issue. The District Court held that the statute truncates the ‘freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The CDA didn’t define ‘indecent’ and left out any mandates that the ‘patently offensive material’ lacks values. It applies to the entire universe of the internet/cyberspace. The CDC lacks the precision that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In a nutshell, in order to deny minors access to potentially explicit and obscene speech, it would also keep a greater amount of speech from adults that have a constitutional right to receive. The CDA’s ‘indecent transmission’ and ‘patently offensive display’ provisions abridge ‘the freedom of speech’ which is protected by the Frist Amendment of the Constitution. There have been other cases that have had difficulties with having a conclusive definition of word obscenity. For example, the Courts restated its definition in Miller v California (1973). It substituted a three part detailed test to be used by each locality- the so called ‘community standards’ test to help define the

Since the internet has been available in schools and libraries in this country, there has been a debate about what should be accessible to users, especially minors. The amount of information disseminated on the world wide web is vast, with some sources valuable for scholarly and personal research and entertainment, and some sources that contain material that is objectionable to some (ie. pornography, gambling, hate groups sites, violent materials). Some information potentially accessible on the internet such as child pornography and obscenity is strictly illegal and is not protected under the First Amendment. Some information available on the internet that may be valuable to some is at the same time perceived to be worthless or

The Internet is a global network of vast information. With a few clicks, an individual can have access to up to 200 million web-sites filled with educational and recreational information. The Internet is not regulated in anyway (Carnegie Library 1). It is accessible throughout the entire world from the North to the South, to the early morning sunrise and dark sunsets. Different ethnicity and backgrounds come together linked upon this network resembling a connection of one body in unity. Sadly, issues arise creating concern for users, focusing particularly on minors. Pornography is one of the inappropriate materials on the Internet for minors. This material is harmful to young impressionable minds. Pornography is tearing and

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.

It is obvious that for years, the government has been trying to regulate this type of content but has seen very limited success. Part of the reason for this is because certain regulatory actions intended to protect only a small group, such as children, should not require the prohibition of material that adults have access to in other arenas. It is for example, legal for people to rent pornographic movies or buy nude magazines, so distribution of this type of material on the Internet should not be completely limited. People shouting out for protection of their 1st Amendment rights have made a good point when arguing against complete censorship. What seems more feasible is a sort of multi-layered approach to regulate illegal and harmful content on the Net. This would make it possible to form some sort of insulation for children

Some people wonder who came up with the idea of internet censorship. Other people want to know which countries use it. Some ponder over the idea of what really is internet censorship. Internet censorship is controlling what can be viewed, and which sites can be used on the internet. Some things about internet censorship are countries that use it, and who started the idea of it.

“Never before in history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (qtd in “Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse”). The problem addressed in the quote by the U.S. Department of Justice is pornography, a 10 billion dollar industry, has made its way from discreet taboo to something that is today considered acceptable and even common. With the internet being such a common tool, it is no surprise that there is easy access to sexually explicit material. The widespread accessibility and usage of pornography has changed people’s outlook on the normality of watching such sexually explicit material, and