More handpicked essays just for you.
Discuss the right to freedom of expression
The importance of having freedom of expression
A discussion of freedom of expression
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When you bring your child to the public library to checkout a book, or to let them use the computers for a school project you do not want to have to worry about them accidentally seeing another person there looking at pornography or even worse, them accidentally pulling it up on their computer. Many libraries do not filter their internet and therefore leave children at risk of seeing these disturbing images. Those that oppose filtering the internet feel as if it imposes on their first amendment right and that these filters either filter too much or do not filter enough. Although it is important to protect people’s first amendment right, it is our moral obligation to protect our children from pornography and other disturbing images while they are in a public place, especially a library since it is used mostly for educational purposes. But, with filters comes controversy: whether it imposes on one’s first …show more content…
amendment right, if the government can force libraries to implement filters, and lastly, why filters are absolutely necessary. The First Amendment deals with the freedom of speech and those who oppose filters feel that implementing them in public libraries imposes on this right. No one wants to feel as if the government is taking away their rights, or as if we are living under a dictatorship. Filters are viewed as a limitation or invasion of their right to choose what they look at and watch. Many say these “filters are not always accurate; they both over-block (restricting access to legitimate educational websites) and under-block (allowing access to sites that may contain material that is obscene, pornographic, and harmful to minors)” (Adams 30). This is a major issue with filters, but with almost everything in life you will have glitches and things may not always work out perfectly the first time, however if it means protecting our children I believe it is necessary. Others feel that “relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information” (Adams 29). However, filters are not meant to limit learning but to exclude inappropriate content that could be harmful. The government is not mandating that filters be used on everyone’s computer, only those that are used in schools and public libraries and only if they receive certain funds or grants from the government (Jaeger 6). Next, we must look at whether or not it is acceptable for the government to make libraries use filters. Should the government force public libraries to use filters? “The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) established requirements for both public libraries and public schools to—as a condition for receiving certain federal funds—adopt filters on all of their computers to protect children from online content that was deemed potentially harmful” (Jaeger 6). After years of squabbling the courts finally decided that it was mandatory to use filters if these institutions wanted to continue to receive federal grants and funding. The government is not trying to take away our rights, it is merely trying to uphold the moral rights of children. There may always be problems and issues regarding what is filtered and whether or not it should or should not be filtered out, but we must strive to do our best at protecting children from all information on the internet that could be harmful to them. If a person feels the need to view pornographic images or other obscenities, then they should do so in the privacy of their home, not in public. Filters offer a way for everyone to be able to enjoy the perks and advantages that public libraries offer. If certain libraries feel that filters are an injustice or are unfair, then they are able to object to using them, but they must face the consequences of their actions just like parents who choose to bring their children to libraries that do not filter their internet. Having filters in public libraries and schools is absolutely necessary for the protection of our youth. Leaving our children unprotected against not only pornography but predators and other evils is not an environment we want for them. We should not have to be worried that our kids will see graphic pictures or videos while surfing the web in a library or at school. There are so many different types of horrific images and videos on the internet and “accessing any of this data can be a mere few mouse clicks away, either purposely, or even by accident” (Borcherding 22). Nowadays anyone can pull up anything on the internet “from the tame to the horrifying, pedophilia, hate, “adult” chat rooms, and primers on all sorts of illegal activities from growing marijuana in your closet to bomb design” (Borcherding 22). Are these the types of things we want our children viewing? I believe that protecting them from these sites is a necessity in this day and age. People should not look at filters as something used to hinder them, but merely as something that protects them and their children. There is always two sides to every story and I believe that in this case both sides are right in some ways.
However, I feel that it is more important to keep these obscenities out of the minds of our children for as long as possible. They have their whole lives to see graphic images, hate, vulgar language and “adult” content, they do not need to be exposed to these vial things too soon. Our goal as parents and teachers is to teach the youth of this nation right and wrong and to lead and guide them in the right direction. If they chose as adults to view these types of things then that is their own decision and by this time they have hopefully matured enough to see these things and make the right decisions. Filters can and should always be improved, but it is clear that they are of great value and should remain in public libraries and in schools. There should always be continuous development of new types of filters and different ways to protect what kids see on the internet. As long as we can keep putting good in there will always be hope to get good
out.
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
The type of content usually censored is sexual or violent things but Ballaro states, “Some bans (and the filtering software used to enforce them) eliminated access not only to pornographic materials but also to legitimate health and medical information” (Ballaro 1). If someone were to become sick, looking up symptoms on the internet is not the most efficient way to go about finding out what sickness they have, or what kind of treatments there are. Going to a professional would ensure that they get the correct diagnosis and treatment. Everything on the internet can be changed and not knowing the accuracy of a source is going to make the search more or less accurate. Children are also a big part of why things are censored. In the same passage, it is explained,“Opponents of Internet Censorship argue that education, not censorship, represents the best means of protecting children…” (Ballaro 1). Telling someone not to do something will just make them want to do it more. Educating kids on the dangers of the internet will not stop them from going on the internet. Protection children from all scammers and hackers, not just to mention explicit material, would also be challenging considering the internet is changing rapidly each day. Why not just block websites that are bad so even if children are tempted, they can not go to
Objectionable content found in challenged books across the country can range from some vulgar language, to rape and incest, and even to explicit sex scenes. However objectionable these topics may be, high schoolers are already exposed to them in some way, whether it be through listening to popular music on the radio, watching television, or browsing the internet. Many parents, and even board members of some schools, object certain books for a variety of reasons. What they have failed to realize is this: if they are so concerned about what their children read in school, are they as concerned about monitoring what they hear on the radio, see on television, and search online? Many schools across the country are now taking the technological route when it comes to teaching. This often means students can have access to the internet while in their classroom. This point goes back to the prior statement of ...
The First Amendment is what we chose because it covers good areas (topics) that are occurring in the world on a daily basis. Many people like the items that The First Amendment covers, and some people don't like them. Either way there are many other amendments that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the House and Senate. There are ten amendments in the constitution, but there are 17 other amendments that aren't in the constitution. Therefore, in total there are 27 amendments.
Issues of censorship in public schools are contests between the exercise of discretion and the exercise of a Constitutional right. The law must reconcile conflicting claims of liberty and authority, as expressed by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940 in “Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries” by Herbert N. Foerstel (23).
Students’ rights in schools are limited or just taken away. Kids are forced to do whatever the officials at their school, either the principal or the teachers, tell the students to do. One of the main right that gets taken away or limited is students’ first amendment rights, which is the freedom of expression. Students can gets suspended by just doing things the staff at the school does not like, including saying things that they don 't like or supporting a religion that the school does not support. Also, if something is said about the school or the people attending the school is said on social media that student can also get in a lot of trouble. Students should be able to have more first amendment
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (www.law.cornell.edu/.../constitution.billofrigh)
Censoring school books in libraries can often lead to censorship of our basic freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. In some cases, a minority ends up dictating the majority in censorship
Since the internet has been available in schools and libraries in this country, there has been a debate about what should be accessible to users, especially minors. The amount of information disseminated on the world wide web is vast, with some sources valuable for scholarly and personal research and entertainment, and some sources that contain material that is objectionable to some (ie. pornography, gambling, hate groups sites, violent materials). Some information potentially accessible on the internet such as child pornography and obscenity is strictly illegal and is not protected under the First Amendment. Some information available on the internet that may be valuable to some is at the same time perceived to be worthless or potentially harmful to some. For libraries serving the public, there has been controversy on the issue of providing the internet, free of censorship or filtering, to users. While some librarians and their professional associations align with ideals of free and unfiltered access to all information provided by the internet, some feel that filtering internet content to exclude possibly objectionable materials is a reasonable measure to prevent potential harm to minors.
This article emphasizes the point that censors go too far when they attempt to not only ban a book for their own children but want to remove it altogether from a school library, so that other students cannot read it.
Especially considering America’s wide access to information through technology, the attempt to restrict “inappropriate” information from children is an infeasible and somewhat malicious task. First of all, children are not “protected” when unable to read books that contain adult material. Kids need to be exposed to things like sex and violence because if they are unfamiliar with these “adult” topics, when they come upon them in the uncensored, real world, their reactions will be unpredictable. Censoring reading material about murder, for example, may seem like a good solution to preventing violence among the future adult generation. But if a child did not understand the concept of taking another per...
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
Reitman, Rainey. " The Cost of Censorship in Libraries: 10 Years Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act." Electronic Frontier Foundation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 4 Sept. 2013. Web.
There are two real issues at stake when looking at this controversial topic. The first issue is finding a way to protect our children from potentially damaging material. There are advocates to censoring the Internet and removing this type of material because it will help shelter our children from this type of content. On the other hand, Free Speech advocates believe that it is the individual citizens right to have access to this typ...