Censorship Of The Internet And The Tyranny Of Our Government :: essays research papers fc

Censorship of the Internet and the authoritarianism of Our Government     "To curtail free appearance strikes twice at bright freedom, forwhoever deprives a nonher of the right to state unpopular views also deprivesothers of the right to get a line to those views," said Oliver Wendell Holmes,Jr(Censorship and the U.S. Government 1). I completely agree with Mr. Holmes,and when the question of censorship the Internet arises, I cringe. Governing theInternet dominates many debates, censorship booster cable the fight. The Internet isthe largest and some accessible form of mass media available today. It on the wholeowsanyone with a few simple tools to consume, and produce, information and ideas tohundreds of people at a practically non-existent cost. Numerous factorsindicate censorship of this force is non possible, and not the governmentsplace. It should be left up to the users to decide what is broadcast. Mostimportantly, censorship of the Internet i mpairs the expression of ideas andinfringes against the First Amendment of the Constitution.     First of all, censoring the Internet as a consentaneous is not possible, so whyeven try? Cyberspace is the most decentralized form of communication todaymaking policing the Internet a virtually futile task. Unlike television orradio, the Internet consists of thousands of singular computers and networks,with thousands of speakers, information providers and information users, and nocentralized distribution point (ACLU vs. Reno outline 1). No guards watch to seewho goes where and if that place is appropriate. The Internet has grown to be aglobal network. Just because one country deems something inappropriate does notmean that another will comply with the decision and follow the ruling. If post horse pictures of bestiality was banned in China, for example, someone inSwitzerland could post those pictures and the Chinese would have access to everysingle bit of data. Anot her example, this beingness completely factual, occurred inOntario concerning the Karla Homolka/Paul Bernado trial. The courts decidedthat in order not to influence the jurors outside of the courtroom that a gagorder would be put on media coverage of the trial. Conventional media complied,but an Internet berth appeared. This was in turn shut down by the police, but unagitated another appeared (Censorship and the Internet 1). There exists today noway of in effect tracking and determining from where a bulletin was posted,especially with the automatic dialing and encryption technology available. Thuseven trying to censor the Internet as a whole would be only an exercise infutility.     Although carbon black and potentially destructive material exist on theInternet, not all potentially offensive material shows violent sex acts with