Should Government Be Allowed To Monitor The Internet

"There is a very unclear, gray line that is drawn between what we think is morally wrong and what is actually illegal when it comes to the First Amendment and the freedom speech. This makes it very difficult to define the extent that the government has the duty to monitor internet content. The issue between what is morally wrong and legally wrong is that morals are based on opinions and feelings where a legal decision should be more concrete and structured. It is difficult to determine how far a legal system should go in monitoring and suppressing opinions regardless of how hateful the message may be.
An example of this would be the issue of people who openly believe and endorse white supremacy. The idea that there is a superior race is absurd to me and when people support and project this idea, I find it repulsive. But is having these terrible and hateful thoughts and sharing them illegal? According to the First Amendment, it is not illegal. As much as I dislike and disagree

People should be monitored based on their own actions and behavior, not factors such as their race, sex, or religion. The illegal activity or threat to someone should have to occur first before the surveillance or monitoring begins. People should not be monitored because of their family’s background or if they came to the United States as an immigrant. They should not be monitored if they have a family members who are criminals, unless there is direct cause to believe that they are involved in the criminal behavior. The same rights should be given to everyone until they do something illegal. On the other hand, I do want protection against someone who has openly threatened or is in the process of doing something illegal. Once this line has been crossed, the monitoring should begin to prevent any further illegal