The Internet is an enormous and complex network that allows innumerable devices across the world to communicate with each other. With merely a few keystrokes, one can use the Internet to find anything from cute cat videos to the news, and everything imaginable in between. However, one could also effortlessly, and sometimes unintentionally, find graphic content. The term graphic content encompasses many things including pornographic videos, violent movies, and explicit music. However, it can also encompass far viler things such as videos of rape, torture, murders, and other heinous acts. The omnipresence of both kinds of graphic content is relevant to Philosophy because it has led many people in the United States to believe that the Government …show more content…
But, there is certain content on the Internet that is detrimental to society and thus should be subject to government censorship. Exactly what is detrimental to society is open to interpretation, but some examples include "fighting words, threats, obscenity... express incitement of unlawful conduct, and child pornography" (Stone 174). In an effort to further understand this notion, consider two different experiences of Person A. Say that a friend of Person A, knowing that they like horror movies, recommended a free horror movie streaming website for Person A. While browsing on the site, Person A watches a horror movie that is riddled with carnage. Regardless of their reaction, given that they were on a movie streaming site, they would be cognizant that they had seen a fictional movie. Following, it 's logical to assume that there wouldn 't be any lasting consequences to them having seen the movie. Subsequently, the content wouldn’t be detrimental and thus there’s no rational reason as to why the government would censor this type of content. Furthermore, the government censoring content that isn 't detrimental would, in fact, interfere with freedoms of speech and expression. However, what were to happen if Person A had unknowingly clicked on the wrong video streaming …show more content…
This is false because selective Internet censorship only seeks to remove detrimental content. Nevertheless, support for this group has grown over the years because of fear that if the American government were to censor the Internet, we would become similar to China. China is notorious for censoring the Internet, where "[the] 'Golden Shield ' is a giant mechanism of censorship and surveillance that blocks tens of thousands of websites deemed inimical to the Communist Party’s narrative and control... [China] pursues a broad crackdown on free speech and civil society" (Denyer). This fear spreads so quickly because "people tend to respond to the arguments made by other people - and the pool of arguments, in any group with some predisposition in one direction, will inevitably be skewed in the direction of the original predisposition" (Sunstein 99). And, given that China is communist and therefore incompatible with democracy, some people have come to believe that censorship would make us un-democratic and thus un-American. But, that is total censorship, not selective censorship. It seems completely logical, if not blatantly necessary, to have some form of censorship to protect American citizens, especially children. The goal of the censorship would, in no way, be to limit freedom; it would be to protect ourselves from harmful
Deciding on who makes the rules for censorship is tricky though. Should the power be in the people or in the government? Censorship should be permitted in limited cases… only a local government - preferably a school district - should be in charge with decisions to censor” (Wilson 6). While censorship is needed, people such as parents should decide how much or how little their child is censored such as what movies they watch or what internet sites they can go on. In Fahrenheit 451, the government controls all. As Bradbury notes in his work, “And then the government, seeing how advantageous it was to have people reading about only passionate lips and the fist in stomach, circled the situation with your fire-eaters” (Bradbury 85). With censorship, the government could go too far, which is why it is a good idea to let every state or county create their own rules and guidelines for censorship. As kids get older, censorship should be slightly let up.They should be old enough to make their own decisions. Wilson states,“Much of the debate over censorship revolves around protection children… School district trustees much balance their responsibility to ensure everyone is granted access to the best education… however, some materials are inappropriate for small children” (Wilson 6). Censorship should be used to protect children. Not just from websites, but websites with people that could harm them on it. Yet there comes an age
Many reasons exist for people to favor censorship, both by the government and in schools. These people may feel that internet filters and rating systems insufficiently block obscene material. Some people believe that children exposed to inappropriate material will become promiscuous or will become desensitized by violence on television. Although censorship may be necessary in protecting national security, there is no evidence to support that it protects children, and therefore censorship should be abolished, as it lessens the freedoms of everyone and diminishes a democratic system.
Censorship has become a long standing practice within our society. Who gets to decide what American citizens say, read or view? There are organizations that review and rate, guard or block information. Governmental entities create laws enforcing censorship and place judgment against those that break those laws. These restrictions often result in conflict against them and in favor of protecting our civil rights. The practice of censorship by authoritative, policy-making entities is in conflict to our constitutional rights, including the rights of our children.
In a world in which acts of heinous violence, murder or crude and shocking behavior seem to be a normal occurrence, it may lead one to wonder what has put society onto this slippery slope. How did this type of behavior come to be so acceptable and in some cases glorifiable? A careful study of society may lead to multi media as being the main cause in this changing of ideals. The modern world has become desensitized to the acts shown on television, movies, video games or printed in newspapers and magazines. Censorship must be employed if morals and decency are to be preserved.
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
The Internet, with its unlimited access to any kind of information, is today’s most commonly used tool used worldwide. This poses some complex questions that challenge liberal and conservative alike, the most recent defenders of the First Amendment, and the most passionate exponents of censorship. With the rush by our President to make the Internet accessible to every U.S. student, the problem extends far beyond libraries and into our schools. This censorship problem would seem to have no easy solution. First, let's assume pornography is a bad thing. It encourages poor behavior and disrespect toward women in general. Yes, any respectable human being would agree with that. But why does this have to be a problem in our schools? Isn't it the responsibility of the parents to guide their children? Isn’t it up to the parents to teach their kids stuff like that is morally wrong? Kids should already know behavior like that does not belong at school. Schools have a fear of this happening so they take action and put a block on all key words that are linked with pornography. Great, now how will students learn about subjects such as bre...
Technology has provided our society with numerous innovations that have been created to improve the quality of life on a daily basis. One such innovation is the Internet. The access to a wide variety of information is perhaps the most valuable tool, as well as the most important tool, that we have entering the twenty-first century. There are virtually no limits on how much can be achieved through the use of the Internet. This is not, however, necessarily a good thing. Most people find that offensive material such as child pornography and hate-related propaganda can be viewed by people too easily via the Internet. While child pornography is a detestable subject, it does not have the sort of appeal that a hate group website does in that there are stricter guidelines preventing individuals from attaining child pornography material from the Internet. These stricter guidelines include the Communications Decency Act (1995), which forbids the use of the Internet for such purposes as attaining material of a child pornographic nature (Wolf, 2000). This law can also be used to monitor the hate group websites, but since the law is too broad, it is rarely held up in court. The hate group websites do, however, have a large enough following that there is legislation being formed to specifically target the material on the sites. Despite the highly offensive nature of hate group websites, the sites should not be censored because the right to free speech must be preserved. In this paper we will define what is considered to be hateful content; why this hateful content should be protected; what else can be done to monitor this material on the Internet; and when are the people cr...
Censorship is Necessary to Protect Children from the Internet Do you want our future generations being exposed to violence, hate, sexuality, illegal substances, and false information, and then one day think it would be cool or alright to try these things? The internet is filled with dangerous information, that children should never have the freedom to access. Children learn from example, and if they search, watch, or read something on the web that could be potentially dangerous, they could be influenced or curious and think that it would be alright to imitate one day. If our children now are viewing these things, it could mean that future generations could grow to be more violent and our world could become more dangerous than it already is today. Censorship is necessary if we plan on having our kids grow up in the safest environment possible.
Most of the Internet regulation is imposed by the Government in an effort to protect the best interest of the general public and is concerned with some form of censorship.
When thinking of killing, drugs and nudity, I’m pretty sure not many people think of positive ideas. Electronics, such as television and computers, show these kinds of things regularly. Despite this explicit material, some people see the constantly improving technology as a wonderful addition to our lives. Yet as time passes, more and more people start to have doubts about what these developments in technology are leading to. Kids and teens should be playing and using their imaginations; instead they devote countless hours on various electronics ranging from tablets and computers to phones and TV’s. These inventions often show explicit and inappropriate material which corrupts children, and are slowly ruining society’s social skills.
With over 759 million registered domain names, the Internet has proved to be the definitive source of information (Hunter). Covering a full spectrum of subjects and services, it is an entity that we can not do without. However, despite all this usefulness, more than 14 percent of all websites are dedicated to pornography (Ward). To further worsen the matter, more than 13 percent of all searches made daily are
The First Amendment has been stretched, ripped, and torn into little pieces of propaganda, conveniently located on the “World-Wide-Web” for the viewing pleasures of all; young and old. In the last decade, more than ever, children are being taught how to make bombs, start race wars within their communities, get away with murder, and how to make crystal-meth in their kitchen sink. There are a continuously growing number of web sites that preach violence and hate; promoting violent extremism of all stripes, and the most disturbing of all is the children who are being exposed and exploited in pornographic detail. There is no denying that this is changing the world in which we live at a rapid pace. Hate crime statistics and child pornography rings have increased substantially since the popularity of the Internet. Since the First Amendment protects these Internet Providers it has become more and more difficult to put a stop to these extremely vulgar web sites. With so much information on the web it is hard to identify every type of this explicit material. Combating online extremism presents enormous technological and legal difficulties. Even if it were electronically feasible to keep these types of sites off the Internet, the international nature of this medium makes legal regulation virtually impossible. Furthermore, in the United...
This world has become immersed in online media from socializing on networking sites to seeking information on search engines. People of all ages have become reliant on online media, but the most engaged users are the younger, more easily impacted generations. Although there are many positive uses for online media, there are many negative uses as well. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for these negative effects to impede upon the perceptions of adolescents. Some countries have been trying to reduce this effect by expelling the inappropriate content of online media ("Influence on Children Media...”). However, in the United States, children are thrown in the waves, expected to stay afloat in this massive sea, but many are being dragged under the surface by the nefarious temptations media creates. Content that is not appropriate for the young, growing minds of children are easily accessible; a myriad of devices may be used to access this material, all at the click of a button. Without adult content filters on online media, adolescents of various ages are exposed to dangerous conceptions. A world of pornography, violence, and public humiliation lay in the user’s fingertips.
In the today’s society, social media has gone out of hand. Most people these days have a cell phone, Ipad and/or laptop and most definitely a television at their home. Therefore, access to pornography has become extremely easy and can be available to any individual in less than 5 minutes. The best definition of pornography can be explained as sexually explicit words or images intended to provoke sexual arousal. The easy access to porn has raised many people to question if porn is harmful, if it should be censored, and if it is unsafe. Many debates have been going on about porn concerning freedom of rights, speech, and entertainment and right of privacy. The main people to have argued on this point are Catherine Mackinnon and philosopher J.S. Mill.
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...