Others so strongly that they censor this material so they can no longer view it. The problem is that they are taking the material away from others as well. And some of these people may want to view this material. To censor something on the Web makes it unfair to people who do not deem it inappropriate. Therefore, material on the Web deemed inappropriate should not be censored.
It is imperative that Americans form their own opinions and not the media for them. It is also very necessary that the news media report truthfully. No false pictures. On (on http://www.ehow.com/info_8101130_media-social-responsibility.html) it says, “Saying or printing something knowingly untrue or making accusations without evidence or attribution is illegal”. This is so important.
First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own.
The government, like any other from a different country, has censored a lot of information from us that shouldn’t be. Our world may seem under control and going well, but really when we think about things, its because we don’t know something, it has been blocked from us for any reason, or they (our government or any ruling power) try to eliminate things because we don’t want to loose control. On the contrast, like any argument there’s an opposing side. There is a large amount of people who believe in censorship due to information being taken in could cause physical or psychological harm. Also, other factors that could cause harm: national security, pornography, and privacy.
In the past twenty years, the amount of change the internet has brought to the world and the American people is unparalleled in history. The phenomena of the internet and free information has sparked so much new technology, so many new ideas, and has broken down so many walls of communication and trading that it is a tidal wave of change. Because the internet is evolving and spreading so fast, many governments of the world have implemented censorship of the internet and many others might are doing the same. Most recently the U.S. is considering beefing up its own level of
People post things on the internet every day. They post everything from their hobbies to their favorite foods and even where they are going to be and at what times. Now with things like the Patriot Act in place they believe they are being targeted by the government and their freedom of speech rights have been violated. . According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven.
Censorship and free speech has been and still is a largely debated topic when dealing with the current freedom of the internet, especially when it comes to dealing with young, adolescent minds. Although the First Amendment in the Constitution guarantees the right to the Freedom of Speech, allowing us as Americans to say anything we’d like without remorse or punishment, the internet should still be monitored and censored to a certain extent to ensure that the internet doesn’t continue to become a free-for-all arena in which anyone could say and do as they wish without judgment of others’ opinions and views imposing on their own. It seems that when deaths are caused by the act of cyberbullying, the “cyberbully” isn’t brought to justice, which gives them the idea that it’s okay to continue moving forward in their hurtful and hateful speech. In his article “Douse the Online Flamers,” Andrew Keen writes about a troubled girl named Megan Meier who committed suicide after a comment was left on her MySpace page saying that “the world would be a better place without you.” “Later, when it became clear that the fictitious Josh Evans was actually Lori Drew,
The quote clearly states that the congress will not take away our freedom of speech. Sadly, any book that has any sort of freedom of speech that is against the congress or just a racist story is put for ban. This leads us to the question, is library censorship unjust or acceptable? In this essay, I will discuss how library censorship is unacceptable. One of the most important reasons to why library censorship is unacceptable is that it limits our information resources.
The internet has completely changed the way today’s society views the world around it. Whether it’s a Facebook status, or a firsthand news story from halfway around the world, the internet has allowed people to have their voice heard on a global level, and has allowed them to share information in a much faster, and more efficient way. The internet has become a vital part of many countries economic infrastructure, and has allowed for the start-up of a multitude of different businesses. It has also given people the ability to have freedom of speech in places where saying the wrong thing could mean life in jail. Although internet access allows for a much more connected global society, multiple governments and private corporations plan on denying this for their own personal gain.
Despite the attractiveness of this service, it is considered in most countries to be an illegal infringement on the copyrights of the television channels that originally purchased the works for broadcasting. The dilemma faced by viewers is whether or not it is wrong for them to view their favourite show at their convenience on one of these websites despite these legal issues. I will analyze this issue from two basic ethical points of view: deontological and utilitarian. Based on the results of these analysis, I will conclude with a summation of which I find to be more compelling and why. Deontology is form of normative ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.