How would you react if after coming home to find your mother murdered, then go on Reddit to see that the top article is the killer showing off your mom’s corpse on 4chan? That’s the shocking truth of what happened after a man known only as Kalac strangled his girlfriend and posted the pictures of the body on 4chan with the captions “turns out it’s way harder to strangle someone than it looks in the movies,” and “she fought so damn hard.” Though this is a sad truth, and many were scared by the event, it was just another day on 4chan. Nothing out of the ordinary for the surface web’s biggest pool of sociopaths, and gore loving basement dwellers. When you think about it, without the allure of being the edgiest person in the message/image board, would there of ben en a reason to post? Why, without the tempting feeling of showing off a murder and getting away …show more content…
Most would make the argument that it would be the best option for the government to take control of what we see on the internet, as if they don’t already do that with everything else in our lives. We should be asking ourselves if that’s what we really want, sure there can be murderers and pedophiles on places like dark-net but why should those of us who do nothing wrong, and simply use the internet as a means of knowledge, communication, and entertainment be controlled with what we’re able to see. When it comes down to the simple question of are you for or against it most that would say they are have defenitaly never had a parental block or firewall. Something as massive as the internet should never be censored, or controlled. How ludicrus would it sound if the president came out and said that the government was going to start regulating space and what we’re allowed to be expossed to when it comes to something that is literally endless and totally
Government officials may want to regulate the internet but no matter how hard they try it will be nearly impossible to complete because of how rapid the internet it growing. So many different sites are created everyday there is no way of keeping up with how many there are or how big the internet actually is. Not only is the internet an ever changing
In the article, "The Dark Side of Web Fame" by Jessica Bennett, posted online at http://www.newsweek.com/dark-side-web-fame-93505 and published on February 21, 2008, the author recounts multiple stories of when the power of the internet had not benefitted people, but had actually harmed their reputation. Bennett starts the essay by giving an example of a high school boy who made an unfortunately embarrassing video, that was never meant to be published. Sadly, another student found the video and released it online, where the video became a viral sensation and the teen was humiliated not only on a local level, but a global level too. Throughout the article Bennett gives other examples to show the reader that people, using the tool of the
Should all government censorship be resisted? I believe that not all government censorship should be resisted. Internet should be censored such a way that gives an opportunity to collect important and effective information and filter the harmful information. Internet censorship is one of the best examples of government censorship that helps to make the society better. The Internet is a very helpful source for collecting information and learning new thing. However, the internet has positive and negative things equally and negative content has a heavy impact on children lives. Base on age website or application access limitation of harmful material that protects our children from abusing internet and censorship also helps to stop
Between trying to prevent obscene video content, shielding minors from harmful content, and the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech, it would be very rigorous for the government to actually change internet policies. The history itself shows that in order for the United States to be truly free, as intended to be in the U.S. Constitution, platforms such as the internet cannot be touched or messed with. Too many times has the government tried to make an effort and put energy into acts that have failed. Winston Churchill, a Prime Minister during WWII, once said “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat
The Internet powers our country. Not only do hundreds of millions of Americans use it daily, our government and states use it to do important national and international business. Our government already utilizes it to monitor the activity of its people. This monitoring has especially risen after events such as the Boston Bombing and the attacks of 9/11. The main reason that the government does this is to keep us safe. If the government puts more slack on this matter, then it will give a chance for terrorists to complete their objective. The normal person does not know how many terrorist attacks may have been stopped in the past years due to this surveillance, and how many lives it may have saved. Therefore, we cannot let our government halt
While the United States has very little government regulation over the Internet compared to other countries, such as china, the United States government has made it a requirement for schools and libraries to use an intermediary software to filter the content available to minors. While these intermediaries restrict access to websites regarding child pornography, which is not a protection of the first amendment, there is also legislation pending to restrict access to social networking websites, which are considered protected by the First Amendment (Kreimer 22). White refers to the case United States v. American Library Association, which refers to the requirement of a software on computers prohibiting children from viewing anything that is harmful to them, such as pornography. The court ruled, adults still have the ability to view such sites if they ask a library official to remove the website from the blocked list, and therefore does not go against First Amendment liberties. However, the judge also said, “until a blocked site or group of sites is unblocked, a patron is unlikely to know what is being hidden and therefore whether there is any point in asking for the filter to be removed” (White 2009). White believed due to this statement alone, the individual’s rights of speech have been restrained prior to their knowledge (White 2009).
The internet became a very popular and huge way of getting millions of different kinds of materials and information for everyday use in the later 80's early 90's. It became easy for anyone to access millions of different kinds of materials ninety nine percent of which is decent according to our governments standards and one or less percent which is considered to be material the is indecent or harmful to minors.(ABC) These facts maybe deceiving however because there are millions of internet sites so the internet may only be one percent indecent but that means there are thousands upon thousands of sites that are indecent.(ABC) The biggest question is how can we protect our children from these indecent sites? The government believed that
Did you check your Facebook today? How about your E-Mail? If not, you may be missing something even now! In today’s fast-paced world of instant information, if you aren’t on the internet, you’re almost certainly uninformed. Networks and the internet make up an alarmingly large part of our life. We get our news (both personal and public) via the internet, we talk to friends, shop for things, pay our bills… but how vast is the monster that does all of this? This question, along with many others, is essential in the debate that rages on today: censoring the net. There are governments, not excluding our own, who believe in to some extent controlling who can access certain websites, and which are available to the general public. The very idea
When discussing internet censorship, one of the major concerns is what children can see on the internet. Internet censorship was a huge deal during the 1990’s and early 2000’s and it still is to this very day. The internet back then was much different than it is today. Back then, we could only access the internet from a computer and most people didn’t own one back then. Nowadays, most people have multiple computers and a cell phone that can access the internet. It was easier for parents to control what their children could have access to back then. Now, parents can still put restrictions on the router settings and set a timer for when the internet shuts off but kids can always just go somewhere else that may have internet access to view any
"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?
The Internet’s continuous advancement has produced the need for an on-going debate on whether or not the government should have the power to control the Internet. The idea of the government having control over what each country’s citizens can see on the Internet is also called Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship “is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet.” Internet Censorship varies from country to country depending on each country’s current usage and philosophy of how it should be used. (toptenreviews.com) Currently, there are ten countries including
Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law. What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence? What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence? As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse. Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy? What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression? Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire. When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent. These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.
These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of
It is obvious that for years, the government has been trying to regulate this type of content but has seen very limited success. Part of the reason for this is because certain regulatory actions intended to protect only a small group, such as children, should not require the prohibition of material that adults have access to in other arenas. It is for example, legal for people to rent pornographic movies or buy nude magazines, so distribution of this type of material on the Internet should not be completely limited. People shouting out for protection of their 1st Amendment rights have made a good point when arguing against complete censorship. What seems more feasible is a sort of multi-layered approach to regulate illegal and harmful content on the Net. This would make it possible to form some sort of insulation for children
Internet censorship is developing far and wide and influences us, regardless that as United States citizens, we have additional technological opportunities than what many other nations do. Numerous Americans underestimate the opportunities that living in the United States permits us. Whether we are sending electronic mail, posting on our social media pages, or seeking out the latest news, we are ensured the opportunity of self-expression and an inexhaustible amount of information right at our fingertips. Censorship takes control of people's expression, and many countries, governments, and leaders support it for this reason. Internet Censorship in the United States in comparison to different nations brings to light the global and ethical issue regarding the basic human rights of education, communication, and freedom.