Arguments Against Government Censorship Of The Internet

"Who has the right to monitor internet usage and, if so, when are they allowed to have access to someone’s internet? The government has the right to monitor someone’s internet history and usage when there is a potential threat to someone’s security or safety. Many other aspects of US citizens’ lives are regulated and regulating internet just be adding one more thing to the list. Some argue for limited monitoring, while others believe that the internet should be censored. Censorship of the internet restricts first and ninth amendment rights, but also gives a sense of security to many people. The argument against government monitoring has been used before in the past for the technology at the time. The government should be able to monitor someone’s web history and usage if it is deemed a threat. In the United States, citizens due have restriction about what they can do or say. Speech is limited in public places, government meetings, school, work, and when it can but others in danger. For example, you cannot yell “Fire!” in a movie theater. Speech on the internet should be limited the same way. In recent months, social media sites like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook have all shut down pages that have posted upsetting videos and pictures.

If the government were to monitor someone’s internet, it is argued that their freedoms could be imposed on. People that oppose government monitoring say that it would be unconstitutional because of the violation. The ninth amendment can be violated depending on a person’s interpretation of the constitution. A strict interpretation would believe that it is a violation but a loose interpretation would claim it is not a violation because the internet was not available as the constitution was written, so the government could claim the right to monitoring the