Regulation of the Internet

Over the years, there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding the topic of whether or not the government should be able to monitor our activity on the internet. This especially become a huge debate more recently simply because of the many terrorist attacks and dangerous events that we’ve encountered. Many believe that if the government was given more insight to what the people of this country looked at on the internet, then they would be able to prevent many horrible things from happening. On the other hand, however, others feel that this is a violation of personal privacy and therefore should not be allowed. The government already monitors our internet usage but they are thinking of increasing what they monitory which has lead to many differing opinions among the people of the United States of America.

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?

In closing, the government should monitor internet content to help stop crimes and save lives. Without the government monitoring, thousands of people would be at risk of losing their life due to terrorism or human trafficking and could also be scammed and lose money. The government protects its citizens

Between trying to prevent obscene video content, shielding minors from harmful content, and the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech, it would be very rigorous for the government to actually change internet policies. The history itself shows that in order for the United States to be truly free, as intended to be in the U.S. Constitution, platforms such as the internet cannot be touched or messed with. Too many times has the government tried to make an effort and put energy into acts that have failed. Winston Churchill, a Prime Minister during WWII, once said “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat

The Internet powers our country. Not only do hundreds of millions of Americans use it daily, our government and states use it to do important national and international business. Our government already utilizes it to monitor the activity of its people. This monitoring has especially risen after events such as the Boston Bombing and the attacks of 9/11. The main reason that the government does this is to keep us safe. If the government puts more slack on this matter, then it will give a chance for terrorists to complete their objective. The normal person does not know how many terrorist attacks may have been stopped in the past years due to this surveillance, and how many lives it may have saved. Therefore, we cannot let our government halt

" The founding fathers created the government to unite, and protect The United States. The government must also be able to protect citizens basic rights. These rights are written as amendments to our constitution. Our government has a duty to protect United States citizens, and with new technology this need for protection has extended to the internet. Federal, state, and local governments have a duty to protect their people, and to do this minimal forms of internet monitoring are needed.

"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

applications as they see fit” (Kravets). From this, a difficult question to answer arises; how

The government should monitor the internet to the extent of letting people voice their opinions but not in a threatening manner. For example not letting people cyber bully others and having a happy environment on the inter web. The government should not over step the boundaries on the web but have still a role in controlling it. What we see on the internet is only 10% of what's really out there. The government maybe should take part in monitoring social medias with hate speech and other things. The world is a very horrible place and with others revealing their hatred venom it would help if forces would take their account down. The government is already involved in many aspects of the world they do not really need to take control of the inter-web just monitor it and have the ability to warn accounts and people about their account.The government should not interfere with maybe less in powered people but maybe towards the higher up in status people. On the contrary, maybe the state should be monitoring not the government since that would be more of a hassle for the government. The states aren't filled with the amount of problem the government

"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.

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

" Nowadays, it can be perceived by society that the government is in utter control of our daily actions; however, there is a boundary they cannot traverse. Since the internet is ordinarily part of our everyday lives, many citizens of the United States believe the branches of government should be regulated on their extent of viewing internet content. It would be unethical if the government invaded privacy by monitoring our personal messages, facing prosecution based on information gathered without a warrant but, it would be essential if the government monitored folks who already have a criminal or terrorist record trailed behind them.

Since the internet was developing in 1960’s in California, The NSA (National Security Agency) already brought up plenty of issues that would threaten the U.S. since the internet can be used on any device or cellphone. In this case anyone can receive any important information you put on the internet since it’s a world wide web. Internet hackers can get through the privacy set ups and receive your bank information. Terrorist can locate our natural resources or be able to see worldwide events to bomb. The Mexican Drug Cartels can find personal information about your family or they can pin point your location. So many reasons the internet is unsafe. However, the government can prevent any of these from happening if we agree to cooperate with

"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.

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