The Pros And Cons Of Internet Censorship

Particular countries practice some forms of filtering. In the U.S., state-mandated cyberspace filtering takes place on particular information processing systems in K-12 schools and libraries (Reichman, 2001). Content pertaining to Holocaust denial or Nazism is blocked in Germany and France. Hate speech and child pornography are blocked in lots of countries across the

The United States Government has control over how a citizen lives, whether he realizes it or not. To what point are laws and amendments allowed to be taken into effect? Trial and error has consistently been used in the United States government. Depending on what issue or topic is being argued, the government has different limitations on how far they can go to censor or control content. The government should not be permitted to censor the internet in the United States due to the history of ineffective rulings. Acts to prevent obscene video content were attempted but failed due to non descriptive language. Other times the government has tried to speech minors from harmful information but was ineffective due to uprises against limiting valuable

While the United States has very little government regulation over the Internet compared to other countries, such as china, the United States government has made it a requirement for schools and libraries to use an intermediary software to filter the content available to minors. While these intermediaries restrict access to websites regarding child pornography, which is not a protection of the first amendment, there is also legislation pending to restrict access to social networking websites, which are considered protected by the First Amendment (Kreimer 22). White refers to the case United States v. American Library Association, which refers to the requirement of a software on computers prohibiting children from viewing anything that is harmful to them, such as pornography. The court ruled, adults still have the ability to view such sites if they ask a library official to remove the website from the blocked list, and therefore does not go against First Amendment liberties. However, the judge also said, “until a blocked site or group of sites is unblocked, a patron is unlikely to know what is being hidden and therefore whether there is any point in asking for the filter to be removed” (White 2009). White believed due to this statement alone, the individual’s rights of speech have been restrained prior to their knowledge (White 2009).

People say that if the government were to censor what users can have access to on the internet, it will make it harder for terrorists to recruit people and even impossible to recruit them online. A problem arises if the government abuses its power. For example, if the government were to see something that don’t agree with say for instance a user on a website attempting to organize a peaceful protest, it could be labeled as an act of terrorism by the government just to get it removed. Actions like these may not happen in the United States but they do happen in other countries where their government has control over almost everything that its citizens have access to. Sally Driscoll and Tracey M. DiLasio said in the article titled “Counterpoint: There is no Need to Create New Censorship Laws Specifically for the Internet” “the influence of the Internet continues to spread around the world, many countries are struggling with the question of how best to control it. The worst censorship occurs in countries such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain the tightest Internet controls in the Middle East. Some of these ideals may also violate human rights laws.” Punishment for anything that may seem controversial in the eyes of the government in some of these countries can range from imprisonment to being tortured to death. There are people within some of these countries that may have family members outside of the country and their only means of communicating are through the internet. In some countries, you can be sentenced to death just by talking with someone outside of the

There are are multiple ways that governments can restrict the content of the internet one of which is using portal censorship and search result removal which indexes millions of websites and checks the address to see if it contains keywords that should be censored. This method is ineffective because it only searches the address instead of searching the whole website. If somebody wished to host a website that contained illegal content all they would have to do is use an address that did not contain any of the key

"The US government along with federal, state, and local have authority over many different aspects of our everyday life. It is important to have structure and security in the society we live in. I believe we all have the right to our privacy to an extent. Government control over Internet content is a topic that is constantly being argued about daily. Monitoring the content of our internet does violate our privacy but, there is understandable reasons on why it should be monitored. The need for privacy, the reasons to what content is being monitored, and how often it is monitored are the focus to the extent of government involvement in internet monitoring.

The United States government has the limited right to monitor its citizens. Many countries all over the world use censorship to wield power and monitor their subjects and citizens and make sure that the government has complete control. In the United States, where internet and social media are widely used, the government should have some hand in social media and its regulation as well as monitoring for cyber crime. Take for instance, England, the country has seen a steady increase in crime rate with internet use and social media, from people posting threats or illegal things such as geomarked photos of fully automatic weapons to tracking files illegally downloaded and obtained, such as child pornography or accessing illegal markets for goods

"Who would have imagined in 1990 that social media and the internet would have such a profound impact on all areas of life: human relationships, domestic and global trade, education, entertainment? Now it is nearly impossible to live outside of the technological empire of Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, or other tech companies. The pervasive nature of technology has influenced the political world as well, involving recent events such as Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, Net Neutrality, or President Trump’s spontaneous and often ridiculous Tweets. The Technological Age has caused a new debate: the government’s role in monitoring internet activity. Constitutional ideals suggest that the federal, state, and local government should monitor the internet activity of its officials, but it should not monitor the activity of its citizens.

There has been much debate about the commonwealth’s and the Australian communications and media authority’s campaign to give the Internet censorship that is not required. For reasons such as freedom to talk about ideas, to talking to people around the world. In china there are estimated to be around 30 thousand police surfing the web, covering up websites the government does not want you looking up. Things such as just searching up “human rights” will bring you to a page that says you cannot access, and this is mainly the cause of communism.

"To what extent in the U.S. does the government–federal, state, and local–have the duty to monitor internet content? The U.S. government should not be able to control what people do outside of school. They need to mind their own business. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of whether they are monitored or not. Social media and the internet has become a huge part in our lives as Americans. We get most of our entertainment, like music, TV shows, instagram, snapchat, facebook, twitter, etc.

The government does not give these rights to us, so the government cannot take them away or infringe on them (United States, Congress, House, Madison). However, due to the corruption and dishonesty of the federal government, these rights are constantly infringed on with internet censorship. Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state informs the public that, “[they] must be wary of [government] agendas and [stay] united in [their] shared conviction that human rights apply online" (Clinton). Clinton explains the reason behind censorship: twisted and corrupt governments try to force their agendas online. That often can mean silencing critics, whistleblowers, and activists. By silencing these people, the government takes away their right to free speech and their right to a free press. Because these individuals cannot exercise their rights online, the government is violating basic human rights to commit evil. Thus, the government does not have the right to censor the internet because it is a violation of human rights. Government censorship also has a negative impact on all internet users, something the federal government does not have the right to do. Because, “when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What

The administration also prohibits photojournalists from many events instead choosing to release their own images of events for the public to have (DeMersseman, 39-40). Iran maintains a database of blacklisted websites, including more than half of the most popular websites used by the majority of people around the world (Lee, n.p.). For Iranians attempting to connect to the Internet, there are some encrypted protocols that are difficult, if not impossible, for the people to connect to with the Iranian firewall throttling encrypted SSH protocol before cutting it off entirely after 60 seconds (Lee, n.p). Outside of the countries that are typically associated with censorship, Iran, China, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia, there are other states such as Ecuador, Turkey, Kenya, and Hungary that prevent critical and valuable information form being shared with the public and creating a state media control that subtly restricts the free sharing of information by journalists and the people (Bennett & Naim,

" In my opinion, the United States government should have a minimal duty to monitor internet content. Also, I believe the state and local governments in particular should not have any duty to monitor what is happening on the internet. The United States government should have minimal duty to monitor the internet because it is an invasion of privacy, restricts citizens’ freedom, and should only be needed in extreme cases. Knowing that the government could see everything that I do on the internet including my text messages, emails, and listening to my phone calls leaves me with a very unsettling feeling. Back in April, President Donald Trump signed a bill that releases internet service providers from having to protect consumer data.

My research project explored the extent of internet censorship and its necessity to China as a form of societal protection. It discussed the advantages, disadvantages and impacts of censorship on Chinese society. As I researched the topic, I determined that censoring parts of the internet was more than just about protecting the young Chinese children from online predators and distressing content. My initial intention was to highlight the wrongfulness of widespread censorship however, as I researched, I was able to understand that censoring parts of the internet improved the Chinese economy, prevented cybercrimes from occurring while concurrently offering online safety. I discovered this by analysing several different websites, YouTube videos and conducting two interviews with people with expertise in the Chinese internet. My outcome, presented in the form of a feature article, explained that censoring parts of the internet benefits society more than it harms.

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.