Internet Freedom of Speech and Censorship

Internet Freedom of Speech and Censorship The United States, a bastion of democracy to the world, has long recognized the importance of freedom of expression to safeguard democracy and grow as a nation. It is a right enshrined in the very first provision of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791, provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Although freedom of speech enjoys heightened protection from the government, this protection is not really absolute. The Supreme Court imposes some very narrow restrictions which are deemed not fully protected under the First Amendment. These include advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, defamation, obscenity, and fraudulent misrepresentation. In any of these categories, the speech should be suppressed because of its harmful content (Wang, page 1). Freedom of speech is equally a dangerous right because with it goes the freedom to deviate against established rules and norms or to go against the status quo and advocate change. As such, all over the world, it is also the most threatened right. Many in the United States today, that include several citizens groups with specific advocacies, are pushing for censorship of the freedom of speech which interestingly finds expression in many varied forms. The internet is one arena that has lately been the target of these efforts as it provides practically everyone with the ability to communicate their ideas to wide audiences and conveniently escapes the ability of the state to control it. The internet, composed of millions of computers and telephone lines that are inter-connected and networked, have scant rules regarding what can be said and done with no one tasked to supervise the users as well no certain authority that controls it Time and again, court cases have ruled against censorship but many still continue to fight to limit the freedom of expression. Government, for one, regularly undertakes efforts to regulate, restrict, or even prohibit a great many types of speech, often with popular support from the public. One reason for censorship of speech that is gaining strong following among the citizenry is the widespread proliferation and publication of extremely offensive materials that glorify violence and pornography. In his essay â€Å"Censorship Can Be Beneficial,† Thomas Stork says, â€Å"Now if we can identify certain evils and if advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage people to commit them, then why should we not take the next and logical step and prohibit such advocacy†¦ Must the authorities be helpless to restrain the source of the evil?† (As cited in Planet Papers, page 1). The general American public certainly wants not only to be protected from violence, but they also want to keep material out of the hands of those who are unable to handle the ideas and themes presented in such material. For instance, it can not be argued that small children do not have the maturity to view pornographic material or be exposed to extreme violence on television and that exposing them to such kind of â€Å"entertainment† is detrimental to their development. Many believe that pornography is equally harmful to adults. The issue of censorship versus free speech has been, since time immemorial, a hotly contested subject.  With the dawn of the electronic age, the birth and progress of the internet and the increasing use of electronic media for the dissemination of information, new questions over First Amendment rights are being raised.  A lot of issues and concerns have been raised that borders around Web access to pornographic materials by minors, gambling on the Internet and the posting of abusive content on newsgroups. Web sites have been created promoting censorship in the Internet like â€Å"Filtering Facts†, an online source for information on making Internet access in libraries safe for children and communities and â€Å"Enough is Enough† which aims to protect children and families from illegal pornography on the Internet. Filtering, rests on the premise that technology can solve the problem technology created. Filters block out Web sites with offensive content, usually based on keywords or lists complied by the filter developer. Filter supporters say the technology is ideal because it empowers parents and blocks out speech without silencing the speaker. In February 1996, Congress moved to pass a law, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which prohibited the posting of indecent or patently offensive materials in a public forum on the Internet including web pages, newsgroups, chat rooms, or online discussion lists. The Children’s Online Protection Act, tried to ban material harmful to minors and In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Childrens Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which requires schools and public libraries receiving federal funding to install internet filters or blocking software. Another way of making Internet communications more secure is encryption, which is a technique for encoding messages, making the person who has the encryption key the only one who can read the message. These programs have been available for years, but law enforcement officials were concerned that criminals and terrorists will use the programs to send messages they cant break. Under heavy pressure from the technology industry, and after a 1999 appeals court ruling that said creating encryption programs is a form of free speech, the federal government essentially gave up trying to control encryption technology. In the wake of Sept. 11, the debate over encryption has been reopened, and Congress has made it easier for authorities to use electronic surveillance. Forums and Chatrooms frequently have moderators, who will edit or remove material against the rules of that community. The scope of these rules varies from community to community some will want material to be suitable for a specif ic audience, whilst others only require discussions to be kept within the law. In a landmark decision on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet is a unique medium entitled to the highest protection under the free speech protections of the First Amendment giving it the same free speech protection as print. It was a victory for the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), a broad coalition of library and civil liberties groups, online service providers, newspaper, book, magazine and recording industry associations, and over 56,000 individual Internet users which represents the entire breadth of the Internet community. The CIEC was assembled in February 1996 to challenge the CDA on the grounds that the Internet is a unique communications medium, different from traditional broadcast mass media which deserves broad First Amendment protections. Rejoicing with the CIEC in their victory are the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) which has been promoting the future of the First Amendment and free expression in the Information age and the Electronic Frontier Foundation which protects rights and freedom in the electronic environment. Clamor for censorship of the freedom of speech, whether in broadcast or print media, in television or motion picture, in culture or arts, or in the electronic medium of the Web or the Net, are mostly based on moral and ethical considerations which can be highly subjective depending on the individual’s beliefs, culture, principles, and many other factors. However, if we are to read and understand every word in the First Amendment, there was no mention of any restriction whatsoever; the emphasis rather was on providing equal rights to everyone. If this is so, neither the government nor individuals have the constitutional right to censor the other on the basis that his or her statements may be hateful or prejudicial because the law guarantees the right to express one’s thoughts vocally or in writing without fear of retaliation. What one may say need not be popular or correct. I really do not think that censorship is a solution to the atmosphere of violence, obscenity and other social concerns pervading American society today. Censorship may even be harmful as it gives a temporary feeling of false security. Freedom of speech is just among the many rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The risk, however, is allowing our other rights to be diminished in the end. This is in contravention to the fundamentals of democracy and right to dignity which have been specifically enshrined in our Constitution for us to exercise our liberty and live without fear and prejudice. Today, millions of people are combating internet censorship through writing Blogs as well as by forming organizations that raise the people’s awareness regarding Internet censorship. An example would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which opposes Internet censorship and as such, has filled several lawsuits against censorship laws. In 2007, the Childrens Online Protection Act (COPA) which made information that can be harmful to minors illegal even if the same information is necessary to adults, was brought to the federal court by the UCLA saying that it was unconstitutional. The development of a new medium always creates new anxieties. Gutenbergs press prompted two centuries of debate over whether the spread of books would corrupt society. Privacy and free speech are already among the nations most difficult social issues; and it would be startling if the Internet did not raise new concerns about both of them. Even the Internet itself is only the beginning. The electronic age is creating an entirely new medium, one that combines the interactive Internet with older media like TV, radio, print, mail, and the telephone. he questions of how to balance personal privacy and public safety have become all the more urgent since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The â€Å"war on terrorism† evolves daily, even as the technology continues to evolve. The publics opinions about this medium are in flux and their views on free speech and privacy were far from settled to begin with. A Planet of Publishers Press critic A.J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. Thanks to the Internet, millions of individuals now have the power that formerly only belonged to the owners of printing presses and broadcast licenses the power to spread their views, whether profound or profane, to a worldwide audience. That has prompted a remarkable burst of creativity, but it has also provided hate groups and pornographers with a low-cost way of spreading their messages to anyone, including children, with a personal computer. So far, the U.S. government has supported two approaches to dealing with offensive content: regulation and filtering. Two major attempts at regulation have been struck down by the courts, either in whole or in part. The first, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, would have made publishing indecent or patently offensive material on the Internet a federal offense. The U.S. Supreme Court, in ACLU vs. Reno, came down firmly on the side of granting the highest free-speech protection to the Internet and struck down the indecency portions of the law. A second law, the Children’s Online Protection Act, tried to ban material harmful to minors. The Supreme Court sent the law back to a lower court for further review in May 2002, effectively blocking enforcement for the time being. The other tactic, filtering, rests on the premise that technology can solve the problem technology created. Filters block out Web sites with offensive content, usually based on keywords or lists complied by the filter developer. Filter supporters say the technology is ideal because it empowers parents and blocks out speech without silencing the speaker. Critics say filters are a crude tool at best because they depend on keywords that could crop up on perfectly legitimate sites devoted to breast cancer, AIDS prevention, or the novel Moby Dick. A third federal law would have required all public libraries to use filters, but a federal court threw out the law in 2002, saying filters would block porn and protected speech alike. Your Personal Fish Bowl The Internet itself may seem anonymous, but it is far from private. E-mail can be easily intercepted by anyone with enough technical skill, and Web sites can track substantial information about users, either by voluntary registration or involuntarily through the use of cookies files quietly stored on a visitors computer that will identify them to the Web site on their next visit. One way of making Internet communications more secure is encryption, the technique for coding messages so they can only be read by someone who has the encryption key. Encryption programs have been available for years, and businesses contend that strong encryption is critical to keeping online commerce secure. But even before Sept. 11, law enforcement officials were concerned that criminals and terrorists will use the programs to send messages they cant break. Under heavy pressure from the technology industry, and after a 1999 appeals court ruling that said creating encryption programs is a form of free speech, the federal government essentially gave up trying to control encryption technology. In the wake of Sept. 11, the debate over encryption has been reopened, and Congress has already made it easier for authorities to use electronic surveillance. But the ability of Web sites and hackers to collect information pales next to the newfound power technology gives to governments and marketers. Data warehouses are able to mix information from different sources to create a single, detailed profile of an individual, including vital statistics, how much they earn, what they buy, the state of their health, their interests, what they read, and more. And all of that information is for sale to direct marketers, current and potential employers, or just anybody willing to pay for it. Already, as part of the war on terrorism, the federal government and financial services companies are discussing how to use their databases to flag suspicious activity. Current privacy laws are rarely enforced and would offer spotty protection even if they were. The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law barring states from selling information they collect, such as voter registrations and motor vehicle records, to direct marketers. References: Communications Decency Act. Center for Democracy Technology. 2008. 2 May 2008 . â€Å"Speak Your Mind: The Censorship Controversy in American Culture. Planet Papers. 2006. 1 May 2008 http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/5616.php â€Å"Supreme Court Rules CDA Unconstitutional.† Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition. 2008. 2 May 2008 . Wang, Xinyi. Freedom of Speech in the United States Constitution. Perspectives. 30 Apr 2001. 2 May 2008 .

Is technology a boon or a bane Essay

Technology offers us an escape to inconvenience and makes work lighter and provocative. Personally, technology gives me a lot of benefits. Tasks get lighter, distance gets shorter, communication gets faster, to reiterate some. In my field of work, I use MP3 attached to a speaker to play the songs I want to teach the kids; having said that, I always make sure that I know the song really well that in case of some technical difficulties like interruption of electric power supply or empty batteries, I can still teach the song without using my MP3. Same case when I’m using PowerPoint Presentation. I always have backups. Though technology makes our lives easier, as a teacher we are still reminded that technology will not reach the inner soul of the children. We need to look them in the eye while presenting the lesson through the projector. We need to hold them when we present the sense of touch. We need to utter the words to them when we want them to understand and truly learn the lesson.

Indroduction and dramatization Essay

At first, she spoke hurtful words directed at Elizabeth, however the power to condemn her of witchcraft dawned on her later, which took effect towards the conclusion of the play. She faked experiencing demonic presences, blamed it on Elizabeth, and acquired her desired outcome – the imprisonment of Elizabeth. This ties in with the theme of guilt too, as revenge was a result of the affair. Rebecca Nurse’s involvement in the case portrayed a further key element of this play; she displayed others’ loss of innocence, â€Å"It’s strange how I knew you, but I suppose you look as such a good soul should. We have all heard of your great charities in Beverley. † [Page 30 Reverend John Hale] We know immediately that Hale highly esteems her; she is trustworthy and possibly the finest character in the play to unravel this mystery. When she came in contact with Betty, she instantaneously soothed her and she could establish the girls silliness, during the bogus ‘devil’s presence’ charade in Act 1. Due to this charade, Salem could not resist hysteria or accusations, hence the harrowing finish to the innocent people of Salem. Even the most righteous of characters were noosed and left to swing – this showed the extent to how matters got out of hand. Miller stages loss of innocence most significantly during the girls ‘devil’s presence’ charade. â€Å"Stop it,† cries Mary as the girls constant echoing of Mary’s words enraged her. This raised suspicion in the court, where Deputy-Governor Danforth seemed convinced. On top of this, Abigail pretended to be attacked by a ‘yellow bird’ while ‘pleading’ with Mary Warren to stop. Arthur Miller intended to develop tension in this part of the act by exchanging the dialogue quickly and concisely, â€Å"I’m not hurting her†¦ She sees nothin’! She see’s nothing† [Mary Warren page 93] and â€Å"They’re sporting. They -! [Mary Warren], They’re sporting [Girls page 93]†¦ Abby stop it! [Mary Warren], (stamping their feet) Abby, stop it! † [Girls]. If neither of the other topics were a catalyst to the uprising of this insane and barbaric event, then Reverend John Hale’s persistent dangerous implications to a zealous witch-hunt, tightened the knot, â€Å"When the Devil come to you does he ever come-with another person? (She stares him into his face. ) Perhaps another person in the village? Someone you know? † [Page 37 Reverend John Hale] Hale’s questions prompted false confessions from Tituba and Giles Corey; both characters were able to save themselves and allow another character to take the blame. In the end, Corey’s wife was imprisoned due to this method of interrogation, so Hale pulled out of the proceedings as he distrusted the witnesses condemning her to an ill-fated destiny. The beginning of many dangerous implications to follow only raised one question in the mind of the audience; would the influence of these ridiculed implications determine the result of this witchcraft case? Sadly, the answer was yes. Highly evident from the dialogue, ‘The Crucible’ was built up of many interesting themes, all of which are of contemporary relevance. It would be easy to fathom about the people in this world that are still affected by these struggles. We only had to see the racial abuse towards black footballers, whom monkey imitations were directed at from the fans. In the zealous witch-hunts case, witches’ unusual view upon lifestyle and faith was discriminated against, so the rituals had to be held secretively. Also in the modern era, we see cases of revenge splashed across newspaper front pages; the events of 9/11 (twin tower suicide bombing) was believed to be an act of revenge from the Afghans towards the USA, due the USA’s previous cases of hatred and abuse. I personally believe reputation was probably one of the most significant themes; most events either improved or did the opposite to a certain person’s reputation. It almost certainly is applicable today: jobs, shops, sports, music or communities portray some form of reputation, which shapes arguments for or against them. As a final thought, ‘The Crucible’ did not only display life in Salem, but displayed life as it were today; it is the humans’ version of the ‘animal kingdom’ and ‘where one stands is how one may live. ‘ Mitul Dave 10SD 1 ‘The Crucible’ English coursework Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Arthur Miller section.

The Greatest Thinker Of The 20th Century - 1655 Words

Einstein Albert Abraham Einstein. It is a name we all know, the name of, perhaps, the greatest thinker of the 20th century. He revolutionized the world with his thinking, not just in physics, but also in philosophy, ethics, and religion. In 2000, he was named Time Magazine’s â€Å"Person of the Century†. That alone can tell you how much Einstein affected the way one sees the world. He changed the world so much, that his formulas and hypotheses are held as the foundation for modern science. Every great scientist has a backstory. A tale of how he or she was brought up or raised and the hardships they faced to get where they needed to go. Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany on March 14th in 1879. His parents were from ordinary. Hermann and†¦show more content†¦It was this quality that helped him become a great scientist. When Einstein was five, he became fascinated by his father s pocket compass, intrigued by invisible forces that cause the needle always to point north. Later in life, Einstein will look back at this moment as the genesis of his interest in science. Growing up, young Albert took music lessons, playing both violin and piano; stoking a passion for music that he maintained throughout his life. He once said that had he not been a scientist, he would have been a musician. â€Å"Life without playing music is inconceivable for me,† he declared. â€Å"I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music†¦I get most joy in life o ut of music.† Einstein’s mother, Pauline, was a talented pianist who brought music to life in the family home. Albert began to learn the violin at the age of six, while his family was still living in Munich. His violin remained his constant companion. Just before his 17th birthday Albert played at a music examination in the cantonal school. The inspector reported that â€Å"a student called Einstein shone in a deeply felt performance of an adagio from one of the Beethoven sonatas†. In addition to his skill on the violin, he also played the piano, though he was not as talented or as fascinated with it as he was the violin. Albert had a little bit of a rough life. The Einstein family moved from Germany to Italy in search of better work because they were struggling financially. Albert, aged