Should The Government Effectively Censor the Internet? Essay

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

The Internet was first used in the nineteen sixties by a small group of technology professionals. Since then the internet has become an essential part of today’s world, from communicating through texts and emails to banking, studying, and shopping, the internet has touched every aspect of our lives. With the growing use of the internet, protecting important information has become a must. While some believe they have the right to privacy, and feel that the government should not be at the center of their lives. Others feel that the Internet has evolved into a weapon for our enemies, and believe the government must take action by proactively

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

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

For over two centuries American citizens have bided by the first 10 commandments in the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, for protection over their personal liberties from the United States government. These personal liberties include, but are not limited to: The freedom of religion, speech, and press, the protection of privacy, and the right to life, liberty, and property. These personal liberties protected by the government, from the government, have always been strictly enforced with no unknown territory. That is until approximately three decades ago when the Internet was created. Over the last twenty-seven years technology has been quickly advancing creating an unknown world of the Internet and

" 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.

There is no doubt the privacy of our online activities and the integrity of our communications have been the biggest casualty of the NSA’s surveillance of our lives. Although ongoing revelations of government eavesdropping have had a profound impact on many different aspects in life. The NSA must balance out their interference with citizens lives because it’s undermining the government's leadership on internet safety, deteriorating internet security, and is causing economic losses to U.S. businesses due to decreasing customer trust.

"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?

    In June of 1998 the country was horrified to learn of the death of James Byrd Jr. He was a 49-year-old black man who had been found horribly mutilated after being dragged to death. Authorities have charged three men with murder and violation of civil rights ("A Fatal Ride in the Night" 33). Obviously, if convicted, these men are guilty of a horrible crime, but what if this crime had been committed after viewing a racist website? If a person reads an emotionally charged, hate-filled website and then commits an act of violence, can the creator and owner of the website also be found guilty?

The news that the US intelligence agencies monitor the millions of Internet users has caused a huge outcry. Human rights groups along with ordinary Americans saw this issue as an attack on their civil rights and

Today, society is affected by the many advances in technology. These advances affect almost every person in the world. One of the prevalent advances in technology was the invention and mass use of the Internet. Today more than ever, people around the world use the Internet to support their personal and business tasks on a daily basis. The Internet is a portal into vast amounts of information concerning almost every aspect of life including education, business, politics, entertainment, social networking, and world security. (idebate.com) Although the Internet has become a key resource in developing the world, the mass use of Internet has highlighted a major problem, privacy and the protection of individual, corporate, and even government

Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

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

I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in