Like the invention of the printing press before it, the Internet is a technology capable of changing the way the world functions by releasing information to the masses. Prior to Gutenberg's printing press, only a select few had access to the Bible. This monopoly of information allowed a small group to exploit and abuse the masses through the process of nondisclosure. In the same way that the printing press liberated millions from religious tyranny, the Internet has the ability to further empower a new generation in many areas by increasing the accessibility of information. The possibilities for low cost, widespread education are boundless. The applications for business are endless. The opportunities for consumers to gain new and better ways of shopping are becoming apparent. All of
These goals can be realized through the constructive use of the Internet.
The freedom of expression movement argues that people have the right to express their views regardless of how offensive they may be. Conversely, many see a need for limits to be set on the amount of exposure some of these messages can gain. While the principle of free expression may be theoretically appealing, the accessibility of some of this material often poses moral dilemmas. Should a child have access to explicitly sexual or violent material? Should a hate group, like the Ku Klux Klan, be allowed to use the Internet to further their racist causes? Should a terrorist have access to directions on how to make a bomb? These are just a few of the many tough questions raised by the censorship issue. In addition to these rather flagrant abuses, there are many more subtle and complex issues such as salary exposure or the publication of health records.
The Internet is a reality and consequently, debates about censorship will arise. When examining the issues it is important to recognize both sides of the argument, only then, will the individual be able to find a balance between the opposing views presented here.
The freedom of expression movement argues that people have the right to express their views regardless of how offensive they may be. Conversely, many see a need for limits to be set on the amount of exposure some of these messages can gain. While the principle of free expression may be theoretically appealing, the accessibility of some of this material often poses moral dilemmas. Should a child have access to explicitly sexual or violent material? Should a hate group, like the Ku Klux Klan, be allowed to use the Internet to further their racist causes? Should a terrorist have access to directions on how to make a bomb? These are just a few of the many tough questions raised by the censorship issue. In addition to these rather flagrant abuses, there are many more subtle and complex issues such as salary exposure or the publication of health records.
The Internet is a reality and consequently, debates about censorship will arise. When examining the issues it is important to recognize both sides of the argument, only then, will the individual be able to find a balance between the opposing views presented here.
- The old saying comes to mind, "If Bobby jumped off a bridge would you too?" the response by anyone would be no, I would not jump off that bridge because I value what I have here on the earth to much to make that same mistake as Bobby or whoever else.
- No matter what people think or say no one else in the world can make up someone else's minds for someone. People can be persuaded, but no one other than the person behind that face makes the final decision in that definite moment of the decision. How can information about things that are placed on the Internet make a person build a bomb or warp a child for life because of seeing pornography?
- Another thing is that people who find these type of information must have wanted to find them because none of these are as easily as thought of to be found on the Internet, there is still an amount of looking to find what is wanted and if someone really wants to find something they will be able to find it no matter what kind of protections are put up by the government to stop that information from flowing out. There is a black market of information and things on the Internet just as there is in the rest of the world for different products of interest to people. People can get anything if they have something of interest to the other person on the other end of that trading, may it be money or something of interest to the person with whatever product the other wants
- I do not agree with censorship over the Internet. As in all media people are allowed to speak freely. This is one of our rights. If we do not agree with what the government is currently doing we can speak out against them, and not be punished. It is important that we maintain some control of this freedom. However, I do not feel that pornography falls under this category.
- As the First Amendment states, we as Americans are given numerous freedoms. These freedoms become a constitutional right which no one can take away from us. Among these rights are the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many people feel that with these two freedoms combined they can post on the Internet whatever they want. However, the First Amendment does have limitations. Contrary to what some people may believe, our freedom of speech is not protected when it comes to indecency. This fact, along with several other reasons, is why cyberpornography should no longer be present on the Internet.
- Germany placed a ban on the word "breast" which kept its users from getting any information about breast cancer, how to avoid AIDS can save lives. In another incident, Japan has taken a dramatic step. Not only have they blocked their users from pornography, they also cannot look up anything "politically indecent."
- I do not like the idea of young children finding pornography on the Internet, but I hate the idea of our government trying to regulate us. Maybe this issue is more simple. Parents could interact more with their children, and accompany them when they log on. Some computers do offer a way to block out pornography when doing searches on the web. The parent can put the block on before the child ever uses the computer.
- there is already sufficient legislation to deal with those who attempt to produce, distribute or view such material.
- Filtering can be done by making a list of obscene words and phrases, or others that can be linked to content which you find objectionable, and make the system unable to download material in which the words or phrases are found. This can also be used in private email. Another way to monitor your Internet browsing is by subscribing to an approved online access. There are Internet servers, which will monitor the content for you. (Oram) PICS were an alternative to the 1995 Communications Decency Act. PICS were a system where web sites would rate themselves stating what kind of material it contained. Then parents could block web cites with certain material using software. (Garfinkel 43)
- It would be very hard for every country, which is on the Internet to come together and make up a set of rules to outlaw certain material. "Nations have different views on what is permissible on the Internet."
- Censorship can be an obstacle in the way of the progress of mankind. If censors of the past had been successful in eradicating art, philosophy and literature they deemed 'indecent' or 'obscene', we would not be able to cherish some of the work by the world's greatest minds." (Bruce) How could we make any progress without understanding the great ideas of the past?it might not have possible for me to get information on internet regarding this topic if the Internet was censored because of the words and opinions I ran across during the speech
- US President Obama said, "I have always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I am a big supporter of non-censorship. I recognise that different countries have different traditions. such openness has made him a better leader, forcing him to listen to opinions he does not want to hear"
at his visit to china. but the message was not widely heard in China, where his words were blocked online and shown on only one regional television channel - When it comes to the flow of information, I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can call their own government to account," he said.
