Explain What Role Should The Government Play In Monitoring Internet Content

I believe that the government should have the powers to monitor internet content but that people should be aware that it is occurring. If the government is aware of some sort of threat in which they will need to monitor the internet in order to help neutralize the threat. But, in a situation where this is happening, they should

Living in the twenty first century we are all exposed to things we wish we were not or things our parents wish we had not been exposed to. Things like porn, cyberbullying, and invasion of privacy are a very real thing of today even more than it has been in the past years because our society is very technology based and as consumers we can get our hands on anything we desire as long as we have a connection to the internet. Does this mean that the federal government should be allowed to regulate information on the internet?

Bullying has been around since the beginning of time. Parents may remember when they were kids and the bully would pick on them or their friends by stealing lunch money or just getting beat up, and that was the end of it. The victims remember the hurt, frustration, and sadness it caused. However, these days, bullying is not just happening on the playground or at the bus stop, it is happening on the Internet and on cell phones, making it possible to bully a child 24 hours a day with multiple bullies and thousands of kids watching. Cyberbullying follows children nonstop and into the safety of their house. Sometimes kids are afraid to inform their parents about the cyberbullying that they will think its there fault. Or that their parents will call the bullies parents or other parents, making the bullying worse. However, the effect and pain that comes from cyberbullying is real. People underestimate cyberbullying, just because it is happening online and not in person. Cyberbullying can lead to many different factors like drinking, and drugs, poor grades, depression, eating disorders. Many students have even taken their own lives because of another student saying something to them online. Cyberbullying has been taking place a lot more in middle and high schools because of the increased usage of social media networks and technology. Cyberbullying is worse and more harmful than traditional bullying.

"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?

"The extent that the government-federal, state and local have to monitor internet content would be a simple overview to make sure that everyone is alright and there is no alarming content that could be used to hurt others. Only an overview would be necessary to make sure that there are no obvious threats to anyone and if there are any suspected threats to anyone, there should always be a probable cause before any form of the government gets deeply involved into someones internet content because after all everyone should be entitled to privacy unless there is a specific reason that their privacy should be breached then the United States government should be allowed to view their content without restriction to keep people safe. The National Security Agency which is a national security agency that has intelligence over the country that is in the department of defense in the US and is directed by the Director of National

The Internet’s continuous advancement has produced the need for an on-going debate on whether or not the government should have the power to control the Internet. The idea of the government having control over what each country’s citizens can see on the Internet is also called Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship “is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet.” Internet Censorship varies from country to country depending on each country’s current usage and philosophy of how it should be used. (toptenreviews.com) Currently, there are ten countries including

"Does the United States government have the rightful duty to monitor internet content? There are multiple opinions on what rights people have towards the freedom of being online. What is constitutional? What is not? The principles from the constitution and current events show evidence towards the controversial topic of the United States Government having rights to monitor internet content. Two constitutional principles that support this is limited government, and checks and balances. The two current events that support the idea that the government should have the duty to monitor internet content are the Russia Facebook election, and the NSA spy speculations.

Back in February 2015, there was a debate over what the new set of rules should be for net neutrality and how they should be established and enforced. The debate ended in favor of continuing the use of the rules set back in 2010. Those rules were proposed by Tim Wheeler who is the chairman for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Federal Communications Commission or FCC is “an independent group of the United States government which is overseen by Congress that regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” (FCC). Wheeler’s proposal for the continuation of net neutrality was accepted. In the future, Wheeler said his thought process about the subject had changed and that “the rules didn’t go far enough to preserve true net neutrality” (Reardon). The rules stated that ISPs cannot block users from accessing legal content. ISPs cannot throttle bandwidth or slow down the speed of legal Internet traffic created by their customers. They cannot offer paid prioritization. That means they are prohibited from prioritizing some traffic within their network over other traffic. This rule eliminates the potential for fast lanes. ISPs must follow the Open Internet standard which means users are allowed to go to

This is why the government should monitor and regulate its officials’ internet activity. Marbury v. Madison, which occurred shortly after the Constitution’s ratification, established the concept of judicial review, enabling the judicial branch to determine whether the actions of the executive branch are constitutional. In the present, judicial review means that the Supreme Court can hold the executive branch accountable for its actions. The government ought to monitor the internet activity of executive officials, especially the president, to ensure that they consistently adhere to the Constitution’s regulations. This lowers the risk of treasonous, offensive, or inappropriate transactions or statements made by government officials. This, in turn, establishes a balance of powers in the government, so that no branch or official exercises complete control and answers for his or her own

"To what extent in the U.S. does the government–federal, state, and local–have the duty to monitor internet content? The U.S. government should not be able to control what people do outside of school. They need to mind their own business. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of whether they are monitored or not. Social media and the internet has become a huge part in our lives as Americans. We get most of our entertainment, like music, TV shows, instagram, snapchat, facebook, twitter, etc.

"The United States government should monitor the internet content to the extent of which is necessary, in order to protect the state at which could be in danger of various crimes such as internet scams, child pornography and piracy. Though these issues remain circling the internet, the government still does not have complete control over the internet. This allows many criminals get away with the crimes they are committing. Therefore, I believe the government must find a way to monitor the internet but still respect the privacy of the world.

" Monitoring internet content seems to be such a large debate in the world especially with the younger generations. Everyone has their own opinion, stating either a simple yes the government should monitor or no the government should not monitor. Personally, I heavily lye in the middle of the spectrum on this issue. The government should not always monitor your internet content, unless an issue has been reported to the government where they must take action.

Recently as a result of the advancement in technology, the government must monitor what happens online. No longer do they not only have to monitor what happens in real time but what also happens within internet content, online post and websites. The Internet is a

The debate of Net Neutrality is much about keeping the Internet where it is now or how much to allow ISPs, specifically broadband providers, to manage their specific networks. However, this debate is more political than technical, therefore the issue is the Internet has grown so large and to the point that the government is now involved in setting regulations. ISPs, such as, Verizon, Comcast and others have very little interest in just installing the cable into homes, however, the interest is in what data you consume, and from whom and how much, merely there is a lot of money at stake.

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