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

Censorship of the earnings and the Tyranny of Our judicature     "To prune free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, forwhoever deprives another(prenominal) of the powerful to state unpopular views also deprivesothers of the right to listen 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 censoring the Internet arises, I cringe. Governing theInternet dominates many debates, censorship leading the fight. The Internet isthe largest and most(prenominal) admission feeible arrive at of mass media available today. It allowsanyone with a few candid tools to consume, and produce, reading and ideas tohundreds of people at a practically non-existent cost. Numerous factors allude censorship of this force is not possible, and not the governmentsplace. It should be left up to the users to decide what is broadcast. Mostimportantly, censorship of the In ternet impairs the expression of ideas andinfringes against the head start Amendment of the Constitution.     First of all, censoring the Internet as a unit is not possible, so whyeven try? Cyberspace is the most decentralized form of communication todaymaking policing the Internet a virtually ineffectual task. Unlike television orradio, the Internet consists of thousands of individual computers and networks,with thousands of speakers, information providers and information users, and nocentralized distribution point (ACLU vs. Reno Brief 1). No guards jibe to seewho goes where and if that place is appropriate. The Internet has grown to be a globose network. Just because one country deems something inappropriate does notmean that another will comply with the decision and follow the ruling. Ifposting pictures of bestiality was tabu in China, for example, someone inSwitzerland could post those pictures and the Chinese would have access to everysingle bit of data. Another example, this being completely factual, occurred inOntario concerning the Karla Homolka/Paul Bernado trial. The courts decidedthat in order not to influence the jurors impertinent of the courtroom that a gagorder would be put on media coverage of the trial. Conventional media complied,but an Internet site appeared. This was in bowl over shut down by the police, butstill another appeared (Censorship and the Internet 1). There exists today noway of effectively tracking and ascertain from where a bulletin was posted,especially with the automatic dialing and encryption technology available. indeedeven trying to censor the Internet as a whole would be only an exercise infutility.     Although pornography and potentially poisonous material exist on theInternet, not all potentially funky material shows violent sex acts with