Should the government censure the internet? Several arguments have been raised concerning internet censorship. A portion of the population is in agreement with the government’s proposal for internet censorship since it underage’s open access of undesirable sites significantly to minors (Marty). In this essay, I am going to analyze facts and reasons why the government should not censure the internet. The internet was developed in the world as a source of information and data which should be freely accessed by everyone; it ought to stay that way.
The internet definitely contains undesirable material which can be accessed freely by everyone including minors. The question therefore arises whether or not to allow the government censor it and limit its user’s access undesirable material. There are many programs used to censor internet among them is Firefox filters, Surf-Watch, Porn filter and Net Nanny. The idea of internet censorship can be reasonable to minors but should not be regulated by the government since, adults are able to make decisions and avoid such undesirable sites (Ford). It should therefore be left for home control, where parents and guardians are given the responsibility to censor the internet for the minors.
Government censorship can hence bring with it several setbacks. Learning can be hindered in cases where dicussions and notes are forwarded via e-mail.
. A case study of a class discussing a topic on breast cancer or rape cases can be intercepted and termed as undesirable and thus the e-mail cannot reach the recipient. The sender can according to government regulations face arrest and subsequent imprisonment that may be accompanied with a fine on the grounds of sending undesirable word contained in the topic on rape. This may lead to several members of the class being subject to criminal charges.
Internet censorship by the government would also attract other problems on how censorship regulations can be enforced effectively. The government would embark on monitoring sites people visit and thus will be invading their privacy.
In as far as privacy is important to people, it will not be protected if government regulations would be allowed. It will act as if looking over our shoulders, hindering private activities. The freedom of speech is very vital to each citizen of a given nation. It should be condemned for any government to violate this freedom from its citizens.
Companies like Google have taken a very pessimistic view on internet censorship as it considers its negative experiences with it. Internet censorship has faced opposition and three distinct methods have been set up to fight it. The first methodd is by activists setting up proxy servers, virtual private networks and other tools that can bypass government surveillance and censorship (Marty). This is using technology to fight technology. The second method is setting up of unfiltered networks for access by activists who have use satellite access and long distance phone calls among others to get around these restrictions. The third an last method to get around restrictions is smuggling of videos, messages, ad postings using flash drives and satellite phones beyond a country’s borders.
It is generally not a requirement to have government internet censorship. Private control is openly available hence lack of an acceptable basis for government regulation. Sacrificing our freedom of speech is just too much and as a portion of the population argues, there should be an implementation of some sort of scale. The problem with argument arise when it comes to who will decide what is acceptable and what is not. It leaves out the option of self-control as the best regulation method. The Web filters or Censor ware should thus be done away with as they bring with them more disadvantages than advantages. It is better if the internet was left the way it is with self-control regulation, as it servers many different people with distinct ideas and from different backgrounds.