The Internet And The Rights Of Private Citizens

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. #

The first part of the CDA states if you display "indecent" or "patently offensive" information on the Internet, "in a manner available to a person under eighteen years of age," you are a criminal and have broken the law. The second part of the CDA reads you have a defense against prosecution if you take "reasonable, effective, and appropriate action" by restricting access to minors by needing a credit card (verified), debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. This act is to be thought of as a way to legally zone porn behind and electric gate that can only be accessed by those who have adult identification. To receive full access to pornographic materials, one can pay a one-time fee of $9.95 to an "Adult Check" service (Levy 54). Also the Child Pornography Protection Act has been passed. It is to combat the use of computer technology that enables a pornographer to alter a picture of a child to make it seem as though the child engaged in an explicit sex act (Quittner 74). Rulings about child pornography have existed for years and will always enacted whether it is in the cyber universe or in magazine and movies. State laws are also being made against smut found on the inter net. New York passed a law making information found on the Internet that would be illegal if published in a book or magazine, illegal. People who violate the law could receive up to four years in jail (Rosen

According to the Communication Decency Act of 1996 the CDA prohibits the users from using the internet that provides obscene, offensive material. It restricted the minors, individuals under 18 years of age. The CDA consider use of such salacious material to be taken as crime if made available to the minors. But the CDA was found to be unconstitutional and too broad because it violated the first amendment, according to the Supreme Court the communication decency act was not limited to a commercial speech or entity rather it was a prohibition on whole group. An alternative internet censorship law was made known as Child online protection act of 1998, it was found to be much more limited than the CDA but it too was found to be unconstitutional.

Internet expands more each and every year. Although this is a good thing because we have way more resources now. It becomes way too progressive that humans get to into it. The government takes advantage of this. Humans have emotions and sometimes a way to let them out is to have the internet. People believe everything they post is safe but the government owns some of these websites we use. The government withholds a lot of our information, so it is questionable ton ask if what we put online is safe. The author extensively explores the role of internet censorship in the right to decide what art, or entertainment tool we use (1). This shows that not only do we think everything we post is safe but in the end it is our fault. We document part of our life and post on social media to make our life better or cooler in some ways. It is good to believe that most of the time the government will not do anything but it is also scary to know that they can track where someone is at any

(Childs) What is “indecent” material or “potentially offensive” material? Is a website considered indecent if they use curse words and if it is indecent should they be fined $250,000 and serve up to 2 years in prison? This was answered on June 27, 1997 when the supreme court declared the CDA unconstitutional in the case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.(Greenhouse) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that free speech on the internet is held to be a freedom protected by the highest of laws, the constitution, specifically the first amendment.(Greenhouse) Like many other Americans the Justices agreed that it is important to try and protect our children from indecent material on the internet however this is a matter which should be handled by the parents, not the government.(Greenhouse) District Judge Buckwalter says “my concerns are these: above all, I believe that the challenged provisions are so vague as to violate both the First and Fifth Amendments.” He also questions how the government could be arguing that “patently offensive” and “indecent” are one in the same.(ACUL v. Janet Reno)

Several years after the end of the American Revolution the United States Constitution was being drafted by some of the nations most important historical figures. Politicians such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were just three of the thirty-nine who eventually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787 (“United States Constitution,” 2015, “1787 Drafting,” para. 7). With the birth of the constitution, came the fear that our newly created nation might slip back under control of a monarchy once again. Therefore, on June 8, 1789, in order to combat such a situation, a group of anti-federalists headed by James Madison proposed a series of thirty-nine amendments to be added to the Constitution. These amendments were designed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public (“United States Bill of Rights,” 2015, “Introduction,” para. 1). The first ten of the new amendments, arguably the most important of the thirty-nine, were thus labeled the Bill of Rights. Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms such as the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, right to trail by jury, protection from quartering troops, and finally the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government (“United States

According to the communication decency act, censorship is viewed as unconstitutional because it sabotages people’s right of speech. Citizens of certain countrys are usually restricted from important information when the government threatens or

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

Children’s innocence must be protected by censorship. The debate on whether censorship is beneficial to society often compiles to a few main reasons. Subjects like freedom of speech, women’s rights, and children’s innocence is brought into question when discussing censorship. It is an important debate because what is censored influences societal beliefs of what is right and wrong. It decides what truths are revealed publicly. Some people think censorship is beneficial because it supposedly protects children, but it is actually useless because it underestimates children’s tolerance, witholds information, oversexualizes women, and sugarcoats the truth.

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.

In this paper, we show just how different Internet privacy protection is in the U.S. relative to the EU and examine a significant, proposed change in U.S. privacy law.

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.

In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.

Internet censorship is developing far and wide and influences us, regardless that as United States citizens, we have additional technological opportunities than what many other nations do. Numerous Americans underestimate the opportunities that living in the United States permits us. Whether we are sending electronic mail, posting on our social media pages, or seeking out the latest news, we are ensured the opportunity of self-expression and an inexhaustible amount of information right at our fingertips. Censorship takes control of people's expression, and many countries, governments, and leaders support it for this reason. Internet Censorship in the United States in comparison to different nations brings to light the global and ethical issue regarding the basic human rights of education, communication, and freedom.