"The First Amendment of the Constitution states ëŒCongress shall make no law- abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...ëŒ In literal terms this means that no bills shall be passed by Congress infringing on American citizensëâ abilities to speak freely, both aloud and in print. However, in modern America the First Amendment is interpreted through incorporation to restrict any level of government, may it be federal, state, or local, from preventing free speech. The Internet is filled with millions of people expressing their opinions and enjoying their right to speak freely. Still, censorship is a feasible threat to those who utilize communicating via the Internet. Thus, the American government has the duty to uphold freedom of speech …show more content…
In December 2017 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality, leaving the Internet hostage to service providers. This decision caused a chilling effect on the sharing of ideas by allowing service providers, such as Comcast or Charter, to suppress certain websites by throttling the speed of which the site loads. A common example is that if a company does not align themselves with the message a news source is representing, then the service provider could essentially block their paying users from accessing the site. Restriction of certain sites could also be a result of certain companies paying service providers to block their competitorsëâ websites. A real-life example of a corporation restricting content is Verizon Wirelessëâs censorship of NARAL pro-choice America. According to the ACLU, Verizon restricted text messaging of the pro-abortion group. Doing so because they would not assist an organization ""that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users."" However, Verizon repealed the decision after significant backlash (_ÑÒWhat is Net Neutrality?_Ñù). Regardless of Verizonëâs decision to repeal the ban on messaging, they were not initially hesitant to censor a group they did not agree with. The examples mentioned above reveal why net neutrality laws are needed, and why government has the duty to keep the Internet free of
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans in the First
The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I). This clause, albeit consists of a mere ten words, holds much power and affluence in the American unique way of life. It guarantees Americans the right to speak freely without censorship by preventing the government from restricting the rights of the people to express their opinions. Consequently, this freedom can encourage citizens’ participation in politics; promote an adaptable and tolerant community; facilitate the discovery of truth; and ultimately create a stable nation. However, how much freedom should be granted to an individual? Where should the line be drawn for the coverage free speech protection? (1) What happens when the exercise of free speech puts other constitutional values in jeopardy? What values should prevail? (2) In an attempt to address these questions, many opposing interpretations have been presented. While some construe this clause in an absolute, categorical approach, others take on a more lenient, balancing stance. (1)
For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has been at the heart of United States’ history and most successful research in liberty. The history of America’s nation is the story of the constant struggle to extend the promise of freedom more fully and fairly to each and every citizen. By looking freedom of speech, democratic government is not that important to have it without these rights. People prefer democracy to avoid tyranny or suppression of others. The citizens of the United States need to protect these rights because they are fundamental to the human being to be free, have liberty. What Founding Fathers did is not enough, however, United States’ citizens has to work together for a better place, a better country, a better government.
The relationship between censorship, free speech and copyright in this bill is worth discussing. In SOPA, copyrights are enforced by censorship, but censorship at the same time violates free speech. Although SOPA’s online censorship of unauthorized online material is an effective method to protect internet copyrights, it resists innovation and compromises freedom of speech. SOPA aroused public attention from a wide range of protests, though it originally aimed to help online businesses damaged by piracy. On January 18, 2012, websites like Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia were all blackout and drew great public attention.
If anyone is offended by what is said on the internet, then they can remember to not visit the webpage next time and hold themselves accountable. This paper will examine the issue of internet censorship constituting a violation of the American people, individual rights, common good, and the constitution. Many laws were proposed to censor the internet, most fail in Congress but 3 have succeeded.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The fundamental purpose of the first amendment was to guarantee the maintenance of an effective system of free speech and expression. This calls for an examination of the various elements which are necessary to support such a system in a modem democratic society. Some of these elements found early articulation in the classic theory of free expression, as it developed over the course of centuries; others are the outgrowth of contemporary conditions. More specifically, it is necessary to analyze what it is that the first amendment attempts to maintain: the function of freedom of expression in a democratic society; what the practical difficulties are in maintaining such a system: the dynamic forces at work in any governmental attempt to restrict or regulate expression; and the role of law and legal institutions in developing and supporting freedom of expression. These three elements are the basic components of any comprehensive theory of the first amendment viewed as a guarantee of a system of free expression.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
place. It should be left up to the users to decide what is broadcast. Most
The First Amendment was made to counteract censorship. Though, it is often believed that it was actually made to allow States to punish rather than to guarantee freedom of expression. To counteract this, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. These acts made it illegal to print “False, Scandalous and Malicious writing (“Censorship, Press and Artistic”). “
The First Amendment is the right that has been belonging to people since the birth. When we think about freedom of speech, we tend to remember the protester who expressed his opinion through burning the United States flag or about journalists who exposed a corrupt official. But now the trend is to use the First Amendment to release hatred and worshiping mindsets that go against society’s values and morals.
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
The First Amendment grants Americans the right to have freedom of speech. Censorship is not fair although it may protect “morals” that some people may have censorship still causes us to miss important things when it comes to news broadcasts and other media updates. The basic foundation of democracy is the first Amendments promise of freedom of expression. This is basic freedom and the idea should be practiced not preserved. What is censorship? Censorship is the practice of officially examining forms of entertainment and suppressing unacceptable parts. Censorship comes in many forms such as: Music, television, news broadcasts, internet, in real life, and many other forms of media. How are people supposed to express themself through speech if censorship laws exist? No one should be silenced and people should be able to hear, or say what ever they want. If someone does want to protect their morals you have the right not to listen to, or be a part of it it’s your choice. (Newth)
" Time for the Supreme Court to End FCC Indecency Censorship. " The Huffington Post. N.p., 11 Jan. 2012.
Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace: Government Restrictions on Content in the United States of America
to the first amendment, the expression of free speech is applied to the internet. With all the