Free Speech: Google's Uncensored Internet

Denver and Colorado Springs are Colorado’s two largest cities with populations close to 600,000 and 416,000 respectively as of 2010. Both of these cities have seen significant population growth since 1980, however, the two cities have radically different racial makeups as a result of this growth. In Denver, the Hispanic population grew by nearly 100,000 people while the Non-Hispanic Black population was relatively stagnant over the 4 decades and the Non-Hispanic White population dipped from approximately 326,000 to nearly 288,000 for 2 decades before returning to over 313,000 in 2010. Over the same timeframe, Colorado Springs saw a marked growth in the Non-Hispanic White population from close to 180,000 people in 1980 to nearly 300,000 in 2010

As Canadians, we live in a country of democracy and freedom, which provide equal opportunities for all citizens to share their thoughts. Unlike Canadians who are able to influence the direction of political value, Syrians are under Internet censorship and surveillance by their own country. Censorship caused the local government to filters online content block many websites, limiting citizens’ accessibility to create user generated content. Furthermore, Internet access was only given to a privileged minority. In the year of 2011, the first wave of protests - the Arab Spring, spread across the Middle East. As the civil war rages, death toll raised to 250,000, nearly half of them civilians. Also, a large number of people fled their homes, seeking

Our nation’s current health care expenditures have continuously risen over the past years. This issue has escalated because many Americans do not have health care coverage.

Google, Inc. case dealt with someone demanding a video to be taken down and prevented further threats. Garcia wanted the video to be removed from YouTube due to her getting death threats, for her performances that were barely seen. The court will rule in favor of Garcia if she had valid proof that this video provokes a threat. Elizabeth Martin stated that in her article that “her harm was one that would be better suited to a resolution by privacy law, not copyright law.” Garcia failed to file the lawsuit as her violation of her piracy rights, not copyright. It would have made the court easier for them to rule under Garcia. When threats are being made towards someone, it would cause a valid proof to protect the rights of the endangered individual. Garcia that these threats were valid and were endangering her life. These threats never happen. Muslims rioted but in countries that practice Islam. As for the United States, there were no riots or violent caused because of the video. Garcia couldn’t present an example of a threat that the video caused or encouraged. The video never made any threats to the religion of Islam. Similar to the Burstyn v. Wilson case, Innocence of Muslims has the freedom to criticize the religion of Islam, no matter if it’s a parody or sacrilegious. According to a law review by Rebecca Roiphe, she stated that “films deserved some protection under the First Amendment, turned into a devotion to freedom of expression”. The supreme court ruled

Ilham Tohti, Gao Yu, Yang Tongyan, Shi Tao, Xue Deyun, and Zhao Zhenkai: what do all these people have in common? They are a few among many that are either previous or current Chinese convicts, all guilty of a common crime. The crime in question? Writing to speak their minds. One from a country such as the US, whose enforced First Amendment to the US Constitution promises that “Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, might question how writing could be considered a crime, and yet in China strict censorship of the media that restricts what can be said and what can be seen by the Chinese people continue into the modern age, where “even a single tweet can get a citizen detained”. As unbelievable as it might seem, expressing yourself in a way that the Chinese government finds threatening to its authority can land you behind bars for up to the rest of your life, as Ilham Tohti

The era of Google has seen a tremendous drop in intelligence. Google is making humanity simple minded, as it decreases concentration, dilutes intelligence and creates an inability to analyze and understand complicated and intricate thoughts. The controversy surrounding technology has been rampant. While some see Google and all associated advancements as a blessing and benefit, others rightly view it as a menace to society. Although instant access to unlimited resources may seem advantageous and convenient, it creates a dangerous dependency on an object. This issue is something that has been discussed in many

Google's monopoly does not come from coercion or anti-competitive practices. Instead, it is derived from offering a superior product. On the Internet, there is little barrier to entry so anyone can set up competition at little cost. Through Google's history, many well-capitalized companies have attempted to wrest market share away from it. The most aggressive and recent competitor was Microsoft's (MSFT) Bing. Even Google at one time was an upstart company that beat out billion dollar companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo (YHOO), which were dominant in Internet searches.

Classism was carved into people because of the society they were born in. The classism inside is further compounded when put into situations that will affect thinking perpetually. In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout, a puerile girl living in a diminutive town, Maycomb, she was put into a society where everyone is a classist. Though many don't realize it, including Scout, they believe in class systems because of what they were born to believe. Scout is put into many situations with people in lower classes, which makes her realize what is going through her head about class is erroneous. Consequently, through Scouts experience with marginalized people, that only then she is able to overcome her own classism.

Freedom of Speech means that we all have the freedom to say whatever we want and expressed our opinions freely. I think Freedom Of Speech is becoming more limited in America because in “Censored America” people will act upon if they have a different opinion or they feel offended. They will do anything such as protest or use violence if they think they have different opinion. Words can hurt some people and certain words can be offensive to others. But we should still increased limits on freedom of speech because I think we have the right to say whatever we want but it is still our responsibility choosing words carefully where no one will get hurt by the words. We should try not to abuse our right and we should be allowed to say whatever we want

Did you check your Facebook today? How about your E-Mail? If not, you may be missing something even now! In today’s fast-paced world of instant information, if you aren’t on the internet, you’re almost certainly uninformed. Networks and the internet make up an alarmingly large part of our life. We get our news (both personal and public) via the internet, we talk to friends, shop for things, pay our bills… but how vast is the monster that does all of this? This question, along with many others, is essential in the debate that rages on today: censoring the net. There are governments, not excluding our own, who believe in to some extent controlling who can access certain websites, and which are available to the general public. The very idea

This paper addresses whether we should censor or block access to websites with controversial material. It looks at the issue from several sides: The relevant US laws that are in place, how censorship is used at the university and corporate levels, how other countries are attempting censorship, and finally what I feel about the topic.

  Abstract:  The issue of free speech has been around since the founding fathers first ratified the constitution of the United States.  With the emergence of new technology, especially the Internet, freedom of speech has been redefined and its limits tested.  What are the limitations of free speech on the Internet, and how can they be enforced?  These are the constitutional questions for the digital age.

Censorship is a very sensitive topic in the United States. In 2011, Google agreed to remove 87 percent of the content that the government had requested the removal of (Sutter). This means that the US was successful in censoring the public, with Google complying with their requests. If this continues, the government could eventually censor the public from most of the things that happen in the outside world similar to the foundation of North Korea. There is not a case for censorship because it limits the freedom of expression, destroys creativity, and puts the public at risk.

Google accepting such censorship damaged the company's reputation because according to some critics they did not consider their social responsibility, especially human rights. Their critics believe they favor profitability over human rights. On the contrary Google argues that by adapting the way they operate in China, and allowing censorship would help bring more freedom of speech eventually. The article, Business

Each day, technology is improved to satisfy customers, and to teach humans much more about the world that they live in. Though recently, more younger viewers have gone on the internet, and learning things they should not learn. Bringing in the topic, should there be a censor for the internet? Yes, censor for the internet should be encouraged. Children are finding out inappropriate websites, there would be less problems with others stealing work, and a decrease in identity theft. With the help of censorship of the internet, none of the problems listed will have a higher chance of not happening.