why do they want to censor the internet

Its our right? Uh if you think the internet should be censored, it could actually been seen as the exact same time we censored books, restriction of freedom of speech and we could have a huge political battle and most likely lose, then we have net neutrality and a crappy internet to go with it
Freedom of speech is in the constitution for a reason. If the government can censor whatever it deems 'censorable' we'll be getting a political battle rather than a lawful one. The goverment will censor opposing opinions to get themselves re-elected. Keeping the internet as free as can be is the right way to go. Communication is one of the best way to solve problems. Lets say two countries are fighting. So both countries block and delete information about the problem in the internet. The people won't know. This is not right. The people should be allowed to communicate with the opposite country to know what is going on, and communicate with the other country to solve the problem. Ignoring, blocking, and deleting the information will only make it worse. Communication is one of the best way to solve problems. Lets say two countries are fighting. So both countries block and delete information about the problem in the internet. The people won't know. This is not right. The people should be allowed to communicate with the opposite country to know what is going on, and communicate with the other country to solve the problem. Ignoring, blocking, and deleting the information will only make it worse. The governments purpose in censoring the internet is to hide the truth. The government's words about very nearly anything can be trusted about as far as you can throw a tractor trailer. Now you can find the truth. Literally hundreds of thousands of people put the truth on the internet. Since almost every single word from the government, every department and every party is a total lie, they have to put a stop to the truth. This is no exaggeration. They already control print and television. It is likely that they will censor the internet in spite of anything we do. They have never paid much attention to the constitution, except to work around it. Just stand back and look at what you already know.


The trick now is when they trample the constitution like they usually do, for us to find a new way to get the truth past them. I am not that technically savvy but I hope one of you is. Get the word out. Remember all governments are evil. Some are just worse than others. They don't care about porn. That's just their excuse. Good luck. Do you know how nig the internet is, you are just gunna waste a bunch of time and money that could have gone to way better causes. It would take away freedom of speech, freedom of press and not only that, it would be like hiding information from you. Idek. Sure the internet may have bad content or give ability to do crime, but censoring it is not the right action to take. Monitoring it, or finding another way to stop criminals without prohibiting services to the innocent would be much better. Obviously, this has been tried before and hasn't made big enough impacts. I know that, but censoring the internet is a step we should NOT take. Not only would it put all of america at a disadvantageвВ it would go against our first amendment. The government does not own the internet, who are they to decide how we get to express ourselves anyway? As a Canadian I am glad to say I have the right to express myself freely in real life, why should that be taken away on the internet? Not to mention, people always find a way to get around these things. I am a student in high school and quite a few of the websites I use (Such as Steam and MSPARP) are censored by the school board, yet I still get around it and onto these sites, it's not that difficult. Perhaps things like certain websites should be MONITORED, to catch criminals and try to make things a little safer for everyone, (The internet can be an intimidating and dangerous place if you don't know how to use it well) but I for one don't want my basic human rights violated. Hello? Freedom of speech? The government does not have the right to censor the internet,t he way it doesn't have the right to sensor the newspapers, tv, or radio. Wh would we hold the internet to different standards than those forms of media? We have freedom of speech in the US. mong the more absurd things ever said about the internet was that the network Бinterprets censorship as damage, and routes around itБ.


The epigram was half true, but the half that was false gets more important every year. The internet can be a vile place, and the instinct to enforce some standards there is not misplaced. The director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is quite right to say that crime online is as serious as crime offline. Even the Guardian, wedded to the idea of free speech, does not imagine that this is an unrestrained freedom Б only that the limits that the law should set are minimal and largely concerned with public order. But some limits must exist, and they must be enforced. The questions are: who should set these limits and who then should police them? Both governments and private companies have a part to play, even if government action often takes the form of demanding that private companies execute government policies. It is here that Ms Saunders may have gone too far in her zeal to keep the web clean. The justification for government censorship is that some hate speech is an incitement to violence or a dangerous ratcheting of community tensions, whereas some Б no matter how offensive Б should be permitted by law, even if we are happy for private companies to act against it. Personal abuse, when it is not accompanied by threats of violence or worse, should not be the domain of the government. Courtesy and respect are vital but best enforced by the owners of web spaces. The most effective action is carried out by companies many have never heard of, such as, an American company that handles about 10% of the traffic on the web, which has thrown the neo-Nazi site the Stormer off the internet. A representative of the Stormer, interviewed in about the far-right violence in Charlottesville, described how they used their virtual presence to build support in the real world, and described the journey to Charlottesville with other members of the Бalt-rightБ as Бstepping off the internetБ. Cloudflare has the power to silence the Stormer, at least partially, because it is in a position analogous to a wholesalers in the old newspaper business.


It runs a Бcontent distribution networkБ, which ensures that whatever is published through it reaches the people who want to read it. This involves distributing multiple copies all around the world, and protecting the publishers from the that can knock sites off the web. You might think that no reputable company should be in the business of transmitting Nazi propaganda, but it is central to the business model and the legal position of companies like Cloudflare that they are not publishers but merely conduits, with no responsibility for the matter transmitted through them. It was the StormerБs wholly false claim that Cloudflare sympathised with it that precipitated its expulsion. But the claim that internet companies are wholly neutral conduits is not entirely true; nor should it be. Almost all the various links in the chain of programs that deliver the simplest of web pages to your screen are aware of the content, or could be, and will refuse to handle some of it. Child pornography is the obvious example, but Google and have both responded to pressure to remove politically extremist content. Of course there are illegal ways around these obstacles, but thatБs not an argument against trying. Only online is the existence of criminals treated as an argument against the existence of laws. In authoritarian countries the censorship of the net is far more complete, and often impossible to justify. The Trump regime may be moving in that direction, as is shown by to get the IP addresses of every visitor to a site organising demonstrations against him. The effort by the is more worrying. The publisherБs to resist pressure and reinstate 350 temporarily censored journal articles is admirable. It shows there is no single benevolent world authority to set the rules for the internet. Different countries will have different regulatory regimes, some better, some worse, and private companies will have varying ethical standards. That is inevitable. The central distinction that applies to governments is not the act of censorship itself, but the extent to which the rules are openly and democratically made, and fairly applied through an independent judiciary.

  • Views: 18

why does msn keep freezing on windows 7
why does congress want to censor the internet
why does internet explorer close when i open a pdf
why do they want to censor the internet
why use the when searching on the internet
why do we use internet in our daily life
why is my mac slow all of a sudden