Government Regulation of Pornography on the Internet
In this paperwork, I am going to discuss Cleaver’s case about government regulation of pornography on the internet identifying those against the regulation and their arguments. I will also talk about the arguments opposing internet regulation as Cleaver cite, and how well Cleaver answer these opposing arguments.
Pornography on the internet has been generating more income for many industries. Attempts to implement regulation of pornography, by the government, has brought up many opponents- those who are not willing to support the government. According to Cleaver’s, it is not simple for the government to temper harmful conduct online, due to the rapid change in pornographic sites that are developed daily. It, therefore calls for both commitment and dedication, so as to attain the government objective. Persons against the regulations blame the parents for not taking total control of their children, hence exposing them to pornographic materials (Cleaver, page 348). Cleaver’s does not support this argument, placing the burden exclusively on parents; since, according to her, the distributor of pornography is the only person who can efficiently control his or her materials than it is for parents. It is important to note that parents may not keep up to the pace that the technology is growing at, especially the growth of pornographic sites. Cleaver’s has also made it clear that some public computers lack filtering software, hence creating an easy path to accessing pornographic materials by students. It is also depicted that Opponents of legal restrictions often argue simply that the law cannot be relevant in this fresh medium. According to them, they think that the law is out-of-date and cannot apply in this internet generation ( Cleaver, page 349). According to cleaver’s, she recognizes the fact that the industry has a responsibility to put into practice. Search engines, according to her, do not have to run advertisements for porn sites. The internet service providers should watchfully scrutinize any talk rooms intended for children, and to do something about unwelcome piece of mail with hotlinks to porn. According to cleaver’s case, it is clear that the battle of regulating pornographic materials on the internet should not be fought by the government alone, but it is a fight for us all. It is also argued, by some opponents, that regulating pornography will hold back the growth of internet technology, but Cleaver’s makes it clear that the internet does not belong to pornographers alone- it incorporates diverse grounds, such as education, nursing, and manufacturing, according to my stand.
Cleaver’s does not support those who are against the issue, and that is the reason why she comes up with solid answers that leaves no room for critiques- she has done a deep rooted research on this issue. According to my stand, if we all accepted the government move, especially the distributors of pornographic materials, we shall end up with an upright and a moral generation that is harmless to both the kids and adults.
References
Cleaver, A. C. (Multi genre Case on Web 2.0) . The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger?
