Free Speech on the Internet v. United States Constitution Essay

College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic political and social institutions. It is responsible for the free flow of ideas and information to anyone who wishes to listen. Freedom of speech supports freethinking and sharing of thoughts, but along with these good characteristics there are also harmful ones. With the positive aspects such as art, journalism, and the pursuit of truth come negatives aspects such as pornography, gambling, and hate and shock sites. To continue with free speech people, must accept these negative aspects such as The Blackplague shock site, "The Blackplague", http://www.blackplague.org/. The contents of this site are repulsive, disturbing, and

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

It said that this Act was in a way creating "adult zones" on the internet and that was constitutional based on the decision in Renton v. Playtime theatres Inc. CDA was not trying to ban "indecent" material, just to separate it, so that minors could not access such material. However, the zoning laws could not be applied to the internet because it is not a physical place, therefore a person who posts information cannot be certain that it will not reach minors, since there is no way to prove if a person is a minor when they are online. #

An earlier version of the law -- the 1996 Communications Decency Act -- was struck down as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech when challenged by the ACLU; the 1998 version attempted to address the constitutional concerns by limiting its scope to

In the technological boom of the 1990s internet usage became became exponentially popular. This unprecedented development in technology led to people questioning the permissibility of online conduct. In particular, people panicked over the easy accessibility of adult content on the internet. Many parents and families were quick to worry about the possibility that their young children could view pornographic material with just a few clicks on a on the computer. As government officials became aware of families’ concerns, the legislative branch was quick to action. Finally in 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in efforts to protect minors for obtaining pornography online. However, distressed parents were not able to celebrate for long. The same day that Congress passed the CDA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the ban by taking it to court. The ACLU believed that the the CDA was far too broad and violated the first and fifth amendments by criminalizing wide-ranging elements of internet speech. On March 19th, 1997 the case was

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.

Technology is growing faster than ever before right now. And along the way technology invented items we now take for granted such as the telephone, the television, and the internet. Since the advent of the internet our world has become more connected by allowing users from the comfort of their own home to interact with people anywhere in the world. The internet has become a staple in the everyday life of the American. We use it to learn, reconnect with long lost friends, and so much more. But what happens when big service internet providers push to control what websites you can visit? Groups such as Save the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union, and even the president Barack Obama have advocated for a free and open internet, which is also known as net neutrality. I believe net neutrality is vital to our modern day life in America. This is why I want to propose an amendment to keep the internet free. The amendment shall read: “The internet shall remain free and open and not be subjected to restrictions determined by internet service providers.”

Since there has not been a ruling in this case, the supporters of the censorship laws had to try and find a way to get the internet censored to children. So in the year 2000, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is aimed at the computers in the schools and libraries that the children would have access to. This law was limited to "only the schools and libraries that participated in certain federal programs such as, receiving federal money for technology". The schools and libraries that received this money were required to "install filtering software on all internet terminals to block access to sites with child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors". My opinion on this law is that it is even better than the firs one. They are very similar, as you can tell from their names, there is very little changed in the names of the laws. I think that the sites that a minor can look at should be filtered. This way they cannot look at things that can be harmful to them.

“This legislation grew out of the fact that by 1998 roughly ten million American children had access to the Internet, and at the same time, studies indicated that children were unable to understand the potential effect of revealing their personal information online and parent failed to monitor their children’s use of the Internet.” (Koby)

"The internet is a vast expansion that has come into its own in the last couple decades. Internet culture is ever evolving, and information is available to virtually anyone with a click of a mouse. This invention has revolutionized the format of society, in both positive and negative aspects. The saying “you can find anything on the internet” is not far off. While many internet users only use the internet for basics, such as Google and Youtube, there is a secret and much darker place known as the ‘dark web’ that is filled with vile/illegal imagery, videos, and products. For this reason I believe that it is the duty of the federal government to regulate the internet, to an extent.

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 Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a federal law designed to protect minors from sexually explicit materials via World Wide Web (Walsh 1). Internet pornography is "readily

Quick to validate the new law, Congress proclaimed that "child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity" (Slade). Congress further went on to say that with recent technology, having the ability to alter and enhance sexually exploitive images might "render enforcement against pornography using real children impossible" because determining real pictures from enhanced picture had the probability of being a very daunting and challenging task. This strengthened the government's argument that the law had a significant potential to protect many children from molestation and abuse.

In 2011, several people started a “Don’t Filter Me project.” They wanted to remove the web filters on the school computers that blocked several educational sites. They filed lawsuits and demanded that they unblock these sites and take away the web filters. Also another group of people petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU in 1997. As a result, the court granted the “highest level of First Amendment protection to the internet.” Also in 2004, the Supreme Court “announced that it will not hear government’s appeal of a ban on the Child Online Protection Act.” They thought of this as a violation of the First Amendment (Internet Censorship 1).