Essay on Internet Censorship
Internet Censorship Term Papers
While the free essays can give you inspiration for writing, they cannot be used 'as is' because they will not meet your assignment's requirements. If you are in a time crunch, then you need a custom written term paper on your subject (internet censorship)
Here you can hire an independent writer/researcher to custom write you an authentic essay to your specifications that will pass any plagiarism test (e.g. Turnitin). Waste no more time!
When the government first developed the Internet for military purposes, they had no idea that by the time the nineties came around, nearly everyone in the world would have access to a world wide web of information. Now, the Internet has exploded into one of if not the best source of information in the world. Not only that, but it has become a place where people of all different races, cultures, and societies can go to converse on different topics. Best of all, they can converse about all these topics in the comfort of their own homes. Unfortunately, with the good also comes the bad. Pornography and social hate groups have taken over the net in some people’s eyes. The problem is, they don’t want the youth of America and the rest of the world to grow up in a society where such activities are deemed respectable. That is why the governments of the world now are taking strict actions to help prevent such material from overflowing into the homes and schools of the world. Filtering software is beginning to be implemented into many systems worldwide. Freedom of speech supporters feel this is too much censorship of the Internet. If this is so, however, just how much content restriction should be placed on the Internet? And what about the huge uproar over pornographic sites? Authors and activists around the world have written and spoken on all of these topics.
A major topic of discussion when it comes to censorship of the Internet is that of filtering software. When the Internet was first developed, there wasn’t an enormous problem when it came to children viewing problem websites. Soon, however, with the tremendous unknowing growth of “the web”, more and more parents wanted tools that would help to protect their darling child’s eyes from the disturbing pictures posted on personal websites. Filtering software, also known as parental control software, quickly came into the mix. By searching websites and search engines for certain key words, this software filters out websites that might be inappropriate. This type of software quickly became popular in school systems and public places such as libraries. Unfortunately, some people feel that filtering software isn’t the answer to problem with censorship on the Internet. Ted Nellen, a high school English teacher since 1974, feels filtering software is actually more of a nuisance than it is a help. In the school systems of today, he feels that filtering should be a job for the teacher, not a piece of software. He brings up the question of just what exactly does filtering software say about a school? Nellen feels it says that school is not trustworthy and that the teachers are incompetent. More than that, however, it makes the children of that school feel like they can’t be trusted. Filtering software actually prevents the learning process by blocking sites that might actually be used as an educational tool. For instance, Nellen gives the example that if he were trying to give a lesson on AIDS and wanted to use as much updated information as possible, he couldn’t access most of the sites that he would want to use because of the way the filtering software is setup. Software such as this doesn’t provide the independence that teachers need nowadays to teach on topics that change often. There is too much energy put into controlling. The true energy should be put into teaching about what is right and what is wrong on the Internet. In the eyes of an actual teacher, the best filters are not software but education, supervision, and trust (53). Others, however, like a recent Network World article take a different side. This article explains recent bill proposals that include requirements for schools and other federally subsidized organizations to use filtering software (4). Another article by Odvard Dyrli agrees with the fact that filtering software in schools should be implemented. Both these arguments, however, are quite irrational. A much more logical view by Dyrli feels that no matter what we try to restrict, there will always be a way to circumvent these (18). The views given by Mary D’ Amico seem to be the most logical in a way to deal with the problems of filtering. D’Amico feels that the parents of a child should be the filtering software. Systems administrators shouldn’t be the ones deciding what a child can and cannot see. The parents should be the deciding factor in just what is right and what is wrong.
Another problem that has been plaguing the Internet since it’s first days is that of freedom of speech. In fact, freedom of speech over the Internet is probably one of the biggest problems. The Internet has become a place where anyone can paste anything they want to say to millions upon millions of people and yet still have their identity somewhat protected. Just like any other topic, there are those that agree with the freedom of speech argument and those that oppose it. A recent article in Network World discussed how congress has tried to fight these problems. It appears that they want to initiate something called the Communications Decency Act II. This act would outlaw commercial content on the Internet that is unsuitable or harmful to minors. Two civil liberties groups, however, are at the frontlines fighting against what they say would hamper the freedom of expression we now have on the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Democracy and Technology are openly opposed to the bill. The ACLU is known already for fighting the first Communications Decency Act (4). Another article by D’Amico agrees with those statements made. There seems to be a general concern about the role a government would play in the rating process. The article gives reasoning that the government shouldn’t be responsible for what people see. Restrictions placed on such things as free speech would prevent some controversial topics from being discussed on the Internet. These would also turn the Internet into more of a place that is run by large commercial interests. Of course, the ACLU is completely against any and all of these bills or restrictions being discussed. Others on the topic, however, such as Joshua Quittner of Time, show the darker side of this argument. They show sides where racists and other such hate groups use the Internet as away of almost recruiting o voicing their opinions to the public. For example, a group called the Carolinian Lords of the Caucasus recently voiced some of their opinions in various popular Usenet groups. The CLOC has successfully emptied many groups that used to be quite popular. The CLOC may sound a little absurd and somewhat childish, but it is a growing problem for people that use the web and Usenet on a day-to-day basis. That is why Quittner feels there should be some sort of a code of ethics so to speak for the Internet (69).
Freedom of speech, however, has not been the only topic concerning our government and the Internet. Since the time when the Internet was initiated, it was often discussed what types of content restrictions would be applied to websites and who would be the ones to manage and enforce these restrictions. Should everything be allowed on the Internet by the government? If not, who should decide on what should be restricted? Should it be the job of individual Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or the job of the governments of the world? What about school systems? Should they be regulated differently than the rest of us? An article in Computing Canada titled “Freedom, Freedom” gives a good statement about the net and censorship. They feel that when it comes time for real censorship to be enforced, we shouldn’t leave to the technical people such as system administrators or the software they create (2). Others, such as D’Amico, write about governments and individuals that feel the system administrators and ISPs should play a part in the restriction of the Internet. At a recent Content Summit in Germany gave way to new ideas about content restriction. The Bertelsmann Foundation of Germany proposed a set of self-regulations for Internet content. One of these regulations was that there should be codes of conduct for each ISP to operate by. If these codes are broken, the ISPs will have to suffer the consequences. David Frith states in his article that Australia is already trying procedures such as this. Rumors had been set that ISPs in Australia that did not block certain restricted content would face fines for every day they ignored the problem sites. This, however, is not true. Frith goes on to explain that ISPs have no possible way of being able to restrict all the problem sites that come through their servers. Content restriction in Australia has already been a huge problem as discussed by Rachel Chalmers. The Australian government has made laws on Internet content that are stricter than that of Malaysia and Singapore. Only three countries, China, Burma, and India, have stricter laws that Australia has adopted. Civil Libertarians are appalled by the recently passed Broadcasting Services Amendment. This bill basically calls for...
Barlow, John Perry. “Thinking Locally, Acting Globally.” Time. Jan. 15, 1996: 76.Chalmers, Rachel. “Australia Close to Adopting Internet Censorship Bill.”
Computergram International. May 27, 1999.
D’Amico, Mary Lisbeth. “Is Internet Censorship in our Future?” Network World. Sept.
13, 1999.
Dyrli, Odvard Egil. “Does Your School have an Acceptable Use Policy?” Technology &
Learning. Jan. 1996: 18.
Elias, Thomas D. “A national code of morality?” The Los Angeles Daily Journal.
Apr. 2, 1992: 6.
“Freedom, Freedom.” Computing Canada. Jan. 20 1997: 2+.
Frith, David. “Australian Government Defends Internet Censorship.” Newsbytes. Jan. 11,
2000.
Hartocollis, Anemona. “How Small-town Standards can Block a Big-city Class.”
The New York Times. Dec. 15, 1999: B15.
Krebs, Brian. “Minors Access Porn Using Library Computers - Report 03/15/00.”
Newsbytes PM. Mar. 15, 2000.
Marson, Charles. “The Great Filter Folly. (internet filtering programs).” California
Lawyer. Jan. 2000: 52-53.
Messmer, Ellen. “The Decency Act is Dead.” Network World. June 30, 1997: 1+.
Nellen, Ted. “Internet Censorship is Both a Menace and Nuisance.” Technology
& Learning. Nov. 1998: 53.
“Nice Work if you can get it.” Computing Canada. Feb. 18, 2000: 42.
“Porn Law Blocked.” Computerworld. Nov. 23, 1998: 12.
Quittner, Joshua. “Homepages for Hate: A Campaign to Limit the Voices of White
Supremacists on the Internet has Defenders of the First Amendment Worried.”
Time. Jan. 22, 1996: 69.
Serra, Richard. “Art and censorship.” Critical Inquiry. Spring 1991: 574+.
Sullivan, Kathleen M. “Are content restrictions constitutional?” Journal of Arts
Management and Law. Winter 1992: 323-327.
MLA Style
. EssayMania.com. Retrieved on 12 Feb, 2012 from
<http://essaymania.com/81522/internet-censorship>
More College Papers
Internet Service Providers
Service provider Services offered
AOL FREE Helpline, 7 Email Addresses, Instant Messaging, Parental Controls, 21 Exclusive Channels, AOL Mobile for WAP, AOL Calendar.
Blueyonder Free technical support from our dedicated team between 8am and midnight
15 email addresses
30mb of free web space fo
Internet Censorship
Is Internet Censorship Needed?
Internet censorship seems to be the target of many debates nowadays in the U.S. due to the rising popularity of the internet and the large amounts of pornography, warez, illegal drugs, and general threats to society. It is a very hard subject to handle, after all no o
Internet Privacy
the e-commerce merchant (Tanaka, 1999). Table 1 illustrates some types of information collected by websites.
Table 1
Personal Information Collected
Type of Information Number of Sites1 Percent1
Personal Identifying 335 92.8%
Demographic 205 56.8%
Personal Identifying Only 132 36.6%
Demograph