ipl-logo

Argument Against Internet Censorship

1518 Words7 Pages

Don’t you dare touch the internet

I thought that with the government of thailand starting to censor their internet and china continuing to rack up it’s human rights violation it would be good for someone to defend the internet. The thing is that most people don’t realise is that the internet basically is an extension of the freedom of speech and the censorship of it is illegal.
So I state that the internet shouldn’t be censored at any grade since it violates human rights, it can greatly affect the nation's economy, it’s expensive and hard to censor the entire internet.
My first argument is that the censorship helps to create a middle income trap.The middle class trap is when society has risen from poverty and a new class is created, but …show more content…

If Sweden, for example were to enact some law that enables internet censorship it would compromises their constitutional laws. The Swedish foundation law states that you have the right to publish whatever you want as long as it is inside the boundaries of the law and that the Swedish agencies are not allowed to investigate what’s aired in tv, radio or any other electronic device. So enacting a law that censors the internet would mean that the government is doing something illegal which out of a political view would mean suicide. Quoting article 18 of the universal human rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (UN, New York, 10/12/15) From this we can clearly see that any kind of censorship directly violates the human rights since the internet is an extension of the freedom of speech. Last but not least censoring the internet violates the definition of freedom. According to the Oxford dictionary the definition of freedom is “The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.” (Oxford, 2007) So if I were to summarise this it would be like. Every way the internet is censored would result in the restrictions of freedom which then would result in the removal …show more content…

There are several ways for a government to censor the internet, The most usual and realistic ones are either URL-based blocking, blocking the IP address or DNS-based blocking . The DNS-based blocking is the worst of them and it’s completely flawed. It’s based on the government giving the internet providers certain ISP’s and the internet provider simply blocks the whole domain. This creates a problem with both under and overblocking. If someone posts a comment on a forum there are no way of just removing that comment. The internet provider has to block the entire site which of course isn’t good. The second problem with DNS-based blocking is that it’s super easy to unblock a page you only have to change your domain name. This means that the one censoring will have to keep the blocked sites under supervision or they will probably just open it again under a slightly different name. Although the problem with IP-based blocking is pretty much the same as DNS, IP-based address blocking is a bit harder to circumvent and one thing that the government could do to improve its efficiency is to block entire neighborhoods, But this will increase the collateral damage with several thousand percent. The URL-based blocking on the other hand is a bit different and better with the state only blocking certain parts of the site. This has the effect of decreasing

Show More
Related
149 Words | 1 Pages

The internet has been used to post all the plans of people. Many people post what they are doing or what they are going to do. People in some occasions post to hurt or harm other people. The video of the Virginia shootings posted by Bryce Williams, whose real name is Vester Lee Flanagan and who is thought to be the gunman who killed two of his former co-workers at the television station WDBJ (Manjoo) was publish and it took the police a long time to find him. The government can stop acts of violence and crime if they see everything that happens on the internet and social media.

Read More
1517 Words | 7 Pages

Censorship is dangerous, and too much of it can lead to an inevitable destruction of our

Read More
971 Words | 4 Pages

Limiting the free thought of their citizens lets the government gain more control. Governments have now put censorship on our society to limit the obscene access our society

Read More
768 Words | 4 Pages

When Bradbury wrote about the danger of censorship, the world may have been already been being censored with the events of World War II. If there was already censorship then and increasing, he had a lot to worry about for the U.S.’s future. Censorship is bad now, and it is only getting worse, which can make citizens rebel against it’s government and against the site where information may be getting censored. According to usnew.com, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970 (Epstein). This states that this problem has been happening for a long time, prior to the 70’s, which as time will prove, its just gotten worse over time.

Read More
594 Words | 3 Pages

With the world population being 7,259,902,243 people, a grossly huge amount of people use the Internet, the number being 3,366,261,156 people worldwide. That ends up being almost half of the population, the percentage being 46.4% I one hundred percent disagree with the “decision” of the government ridding of the Internet entirely, as if that isn't clear enough already. Though the government might find the termination of the Internet useful in some circumstances, I have no doubt that it may result in riots, violence, protests, and more in order to get it

Read More
530 Words | 3 Pages

Government is called to dictate internet content when one incites people to violence with his speech, however, it needs to be a true threat which includes immediacy and an actual intent. For instance, during the Vietnam War, a man expressed that “if he got drafted, his first bullet would be for President Johnson.” The Court detected no threat nor any real intent in the context, therefore, the government had no need to monitor what was being said. If the speech did not pose any likely threats but was regulated by the government, one’s freedom of

Read More
1621 Words | 7 Pages

In 1988, the Internet was opened to the public. At that time, not many people were aware of what a huge impact the Internet would have on the lives of future generations and cultures. While it was at first widely accepted by many users because of its astonishingly convenient and unlimited access to information, the enthusiasm for the Internet has more recently diminished and even disappeared in some cases. Many people no longer view the Internet as a helpful tool, but more as a harmful weapon, attacking every area of our lives, including education, communication, literacy, attention span, memory, intelligence, relationships, politics, economics, even sleep, diet, and physical activity. The Internet is ultimately affecting and determining the

Read More
907 Words | 4 Pages

“A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon." (Bradbury 58) Censorship is the act of suppressing speech, works of literature, music, movies, work of arts, and ideas that are thought to be politically incorrect, offensive, and threatening to society. The United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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 ( law.cornell.edu) However, historically, government officials and organizations have been “abridging” our freedoms since the inception of this

Read More
1686 Words | 7 Pages

Censorship can be very harmful to society but it also has the power to save it from creating negative

Read More
1383 Words | 6 Pages

The government is constantly attempting to take total control over society and its citizens, by regulating what is available, what can and cannot be done, and more. In America, it is believed that the citizens ' First Amendment right to freedom of religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech protects them from being able to be censored by the government and other figures with authority, but that is incorrect. The federal government has censored press on various occasions throughout history, contemporary censorship is practiced in non-governmental organizations and corporations, and in schools, as well as public libraries, books are continuously challenged in hopes of them being removed or banned. Censorship, and the government taking total control of what readers can and cannot read is a danger to society because censorship places limitations on the knowledge and creativity of citizens, hinders their right to freedom of expression, and shelters citizens from the harsh realities that are present in today 's world. Censorship places limitations on the knowledge and creativity of citizens.

Read More
2033 Words | 9 Pages

In order to ensure their steady control over this vast amount of people the Chinese government must control them by regulating the worlds most intertwined and complex communication system in the modern era, the internet. A guideline to the China's leading party is strict regulation in every aspect of the internet. In the past couple years a revitalized mission for control against internet freedom has emerged. The foremost problem in China is internet censorship. The Chinese government has several regulatory bodies in charge of internet censorship, among them being the State Council Information office, the Cyber space Administration of China, and finally the State Administration of Press, Publications, Radio, Film, and Television.

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore, filters create a false sense of protection for parents and students should be provided with unfiltered internet

Read More
891 Words | 4 Pages

2. Disadvantages of regulations/censorship 2.1 compromising the freedom of speech Censorship compromises the freedom of speech in many different ways. Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak without censorship or being restraint by a higher authority of the organization or country. For example, Compromising the freedom of speech will not allow the society to voice out their negative thoughts or to protest at a government or a government-related event. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts.

Read More
1421 Words | 6 Pages

Des Moines in 1969 (Tedford & Herbeck, 2009, pp 1-4) which is in the cover statement, the U.S. or the court stated through this case and more recently, the federal government has determined the need for off campus behavior, such as cyberbullying, controlled by schools. For the state level, which is just like the law of speech and disturbance at the federal level, each country continues to struggle with determine the problem and what legal action to take when violation occurs. In the other hand Malaysia use Computer Crimes Act 1997, in Section Four: Unauthorized access to computer materials with the intent to commit or facilitate an offence. If convicted, the offender is liable to a fine of not more than RM150, 000 or a prison term of not more than 10

Read More
1292 Words | 6 Pages

Censorship is unnecessary because in some cases, it blinds people from the truth. It also leads to misunderstandings that tend to cause disputes. Media

Read More

More about Argument Against Internet Censorship

Related Topics

Open Document