English
Nowadays, internet plays a major role in our society. It provides information that is very useful either for education purpose or social awareness. Internet also serves as a gateway for faster and easier way to communicate with people regardless of where they are. However, many claim that governments must impose censorship over the internet as it can be a medium of unwanted incidents such as internet crimes, pornography, or a risk for children to be exposed on negative internet contents. On the other hand, much of these negative claims can be avoided in many ways.
Internet censorship may not be needed to protect our children from possible harmful effects of internet. A United Nations forum for internet governance was held and most of the speakers, which include Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary of the United States Commerce Department claims that internet must remain free from the government’s control (Magid, 2012). It is clear that United Nations delegates are after the positive results once internet censorship has been controlled by the government, it is still not right to impose such censorship. In addition, most of the delegates are opposed to this proposal as what they claim that standardization is more advisable that regulation when it comes to internet censorship. Also, once internet censorship has been imposed, children will lose their right in terms of freedom of expression (Magid, 2012). Even if others claim that internet is a gateway for pornography, schools and child’s own parents can impose restrictions as to which extent of websites they access.
Perhaps the right to seek information may be a broader ideology as it can harm children from unwanted internet contents, it is still up to the child’s guardian or school administration on how these negative effects can be prevented through proper guidance, but not to the extent that internet freedom will be disregarded.
Internet censorship may not be a reasonable approach to protect people from internet harm. Lindsey Pinto (2013) asserts that it the person who must choose and decide on which internet website he or she must access. That is because imposing censorship over the internet would lose people’s ability to learn more. Internet is a world of unimaginable information and knowledge. Additionally, mandatory filtration can be a big threat to digital economy (Pinto, 2013). Come to think of the websites that may be affected, which can cause internet subscribers to complaint about the service. These complaints will be additional costs to internet providers that can become their reason to raise their prices and make internet less affordable.
Since internet is part of most people’s daily lives, internet censorship must be petitioned. It is to protect people’s freedom of expression based on the First Amendment. Internet freedom is a form of civil liberty, which must be enhanced instead of being compromised (aclu.org).
Internet may be harmful to people especially children as its inappropriate contents are as much as constructive information and ideas that internet users can gain from it, which becomes the basis for internet censorship. However, based on the research done, such censorship of the government is mainly unconstitutional based on the First Amendment (aclu.org). The fact of the matter is the proper guidance should always be exercised by parents so that children will have a broader mind that internet must be used appropriately. Information dissemination can also be done regarding harmful effects of the internet so as to improve more awareness. Bottom line, it is still our self-discipline that will control as to whether internet brings negative effects to its users and not the government.
References
American Civil Liberties Union (n.d.). Censorship | American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/censorship
This article has been published by the American Civil Liberties Union and aims to promote awareness that internet censorship must not be imposed by the government. The article explains that internet freedom is guided buy the First Amendment. It also a form of campaign to ensure that freedom of speech will not be deprived by imposing such censorship over the internet.
Magid, L. (2012, November 13). We Don't Need Censorship to Protect Children - Forbes. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/11/13/we-dont-need-censorship-to-protect-children/
Larry Magid is an advocate for internet safety and a journalist. He contributes his reports about technology issues to forbes.com. In this specific article, he shared the insights of world leaders and delegates of the United Nations forum for Internet Governance and claimed that Internet censorship is not needed to protect children from harmful negative internet contents. He aims to widen people’s perception when it comes to controlling the internet censorship by the government. Since his article covers views from world delegates, he was able to analyze the possible alternatives besides internet censorship.
Pinto, L. (2013, August 7). A government-imposed Internet filter | OpenMedia.ca. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from https://openmedia.ca/Blog/ReasonableApproach
Lindsay Pinto draws on her research as communications person. She outlines some reasons as to why the government should not be the one who will decide on which website we must access as individuals. Her ideology as to why the government must not control such internet filtration provided possible negative outcomes not only to a person, but to businesses as well. This is along with more than just speculations that may have threat to internet user’s privacy.
