“Imagine a world without free knowledge.” That was the quote on Wikipedia’s front page on Wednesday, January 18th. . The information-hosting online encyclopedia shut down all of the articles and information on the website, presenting only a black screen and a stark situation to the world for a full twenty-four hours. Why would Wikipedia, an online giant, shut down their website? The consequences are huge, a loss of much-solicited donations to the company and advertising money. The answer is simple. What Wikipedia is trying to do is raise awareness about two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, or SOPA and PIPA (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act”). Soon after Wikipedia, other websites joined in the protest, with Internet search engine giant Google blacking out it’s colorful logo and smaller sites like Reddit and BoingBoing joining Wikipedia and shutting down for a day. Why are these bills so bad? Are they really threatening enough to Wikipedia that it would take down the English speaking version of the website for an entire day? (ABC News, SOPA Blackout: Wikipedia, Google, Wired Protest ‘Internet Censorship’
) Wikipedia certainly thinks so, and what they are trying to say, is that SOPA and PIPA are dangerous laws that must be rejected.
Now, what are SOPA and PIPA? SOPA is an acronym for the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act”. (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act”, “Protect IP Act”) They are both acts designed to stop online piracy of media, bootleg products and medications, and IP (Intellectual Property). (Wikipedia, “IP (Intellectual Property)”). In theory, the acts would stop online piracy and encourage creativity, but in practice, they do exactly the ...
... middle of paper ...
...n Kotchar. "Why You Should Fear SOPA and PIPA." Forbes. N.P, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. .
"Intellectual Property." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. .
Potter, Ned. "SOPA Blackout: Wikipedia, Google, Wired Protest 'Internet Censorship'." ABC news. N.P., 8 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. .
"Freedom of Speech in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. .
"United States v. O'Brian." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. .
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
Darrell Issa persuades governors that Apple needs to keep their customer information to themselves. Through using the rhetorical devices of statistics and historical evidence, he addresses the fact that Apple should not be forced to unlock these phones. This could not only keep privacy, but also create a safe environment for people. He points out the privacy act passing before in order to persuade the governors to need to think what they did and what they need to do in the future. They should not force Apple to unlock an iPhone because it provides a backdoor for the lawbreakers.
SOPA aroused public attention from a wide range of protests though it originally aimed to help online business damaged by piracy. On January 18, 2012, websites like Google, Reddit, Wikipedia were all blackout and drew great public attention. According to the announcement left on Wikipedia’s website, they were in protest against Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which “has the potential to significantly change the way that information can be shared through the Internet.”(Wikipedia, 1) SOPA is designed to tackle the problem of websites that provide illegal download of pirated movies, music and other products. For websites consist of user upload materials like Youtube and Facebook, they are responsible for all the materials on their web...
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company 433 U.S. 562 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/zacchini.html
Schmidt, E. E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from
Hall, K. (2002, September 13). Free speech on public college campuses overview. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses
...have jurisdiction on what can and can’t be said. Most of the things that will be censored are the hackers, crackers, trolls, and bullies; not the regular people voicing their opinions. While many of these points are important, they can be easily solved without affecting the common good. If your child doesn’t listen to what he can or can’t surf on the internet. It’s up to the parents to take away their child’s internet privilege. Same with reading indecency post of other users. No one forced them to read it, if they don’t like the content of the website, then stop visiting it or ignore the comments of others. Also if developers don’t want their product to be pirated, then they should create more security measures for their product. The common good shouldn’t be punished because people are too lazy, or weak to implement problem solving skills to assess their problems.
What are the similarities between the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act (NCIPA)? Are CIPA and NCIPA necessary to protect our children are all they really just acts of censorship? This paper will compare the two acts, and explore some different interpretations of the 1st amendment; specifically Article 13. It will then go in to the case of the American Library Association challenging the acts vs. the United States in 2003. This paper will show both sides of the case and how and why the United States won.
The best thing about living in America is the right to freedom. We are free to explore the Internet and go to any site you so desire. We are free to learn hacking techniques, about tools, or even acquire hacking information. Which is not always a bad thing. You have the right to go on Yahoo Chat and let the person your chatting with know that you don’t like them. It’s that thing we call freedom of speech. So why do we want to get rid of educational information, and put a hold on Internet users freedom of speech when it not being done out in the real world.
The Stop Online Piracy Act was proposed in January of 2012. SOPA was a legislative act that attempted to prevent piracy through DNS blocking and censorship. The legislation caused the protest and blackout of multiple online internet services including Reddit, 4Chan, Google, Wikipedia, Mozilla, and Tumblr. Now, internet users are faced with another possible challenge called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. CISPA was quickly passed by the House of Representatives on April 26th, 2012, and is now being processed through the Senate (Beadon). CISPA's purpose is to promote national cybersecurity through allowing private companies and the federal government to exchange users' private information, including emails and text messages, with complete legal immunity and one hundred percent anonymity. To some, CISPA appears as SOPA 2.0, another attempt to further limit American rights and privacy. Meanwhile, to others, CISPA appears as a milestone that needs to be reached in order to advance technologically and improve the nation's security. CISPA's purpose appears noble, but the current version of the legislation at least requires a revision due to its privacy invading policies, vague terminology, possible restrictions of internet freedom, and violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Libraries in the United States have been battling censorship since the American Library Association issued its first Library Bill of Rights in 1939. This document proclaimed the American Library Association's policy on intellectual freedom. With this bill libraries have been successful in defending their collections against censorship and supporting their right to provide unrestricted access to information for all users. Now the battleground has shifted from books to electronic information, mainly the Internet. Censorship of books has decreased, and has in turn shifted and gained much more attention in ...
Despite the illegality, restrictions on Internet access and content are increasing worldwide under all forms of government. In France, a co untry where the press generally has a large amount of freedom, the Internet has recently been in the spotlight. A banned book on the health history of former French president Francois Mitterrand was republished electronically on the World Wide Web (WWW). Apparently, the electronic reproduction of Le Grand Secret by a third party wasn't banned by a court that ruled that the printed version of the book unlawfully violated Mitterrand's privacy. To enforce censorship of the Internet, free societi...
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) works diligently to overthrow every attempt at placing some sort of filter or censorship requirements on the internet. They believe that the things censored are protected by the constitution. The court case ALA v. Pataki (1997) held that internet users must be protected from, “inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the internet altogether” (ACLU, 2017). Our freedom of speech is not absolute, so restricting where people are able to get access to these materials does not affect one’s right to speak freely, rather where they speak
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
One of the biggest reasons that SOPA should be stopped is because it is directly against the first amendment. For example, Wikipedia would be able to write articles on a site such as The Pirate Bay or Kick A** Torrents, but if they were to include the link to the sites, they could get into trouble with government for supplying their readers with the links to sites that support online file sharing. This would go against freedom of speech. “As the fracas over the proposed federal anti-privacy legislation known as SOPA heats up this week, the open-source encyclopedia website, Wikipedia, says it will shut down for 24 hours, beginning midnight Tuesday to protest what the website warns is a threat to free speech(Wikipedia blackout- Why even supporters question anti-SOPA move). Many people were upset about the blackout, but clearly got the message. The bill’s opponents, wh...