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

Censorship of the net and the Tyranny of Our Government     "To curtail free expression strikes twice at rational freedom, forwhoever deprives another of the right 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 whole 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 accessible form of mass media available today. It allowsanyone with a few candid tools to consume, and produce, information and ideas tohundreds of people at a practically non-existent cost. Numerous factorsindicate censorship of this force is not possible, and not the governmentsplace. It should be left up to the users to break up what is broadcast. Mostimportantly, censorship of the Internet impairs the expression of ideas andinfrin ges against the First Amendment of the Constitution.     First of all, censoring the Internet as a whole is not possible, so why steady try? Cyberspace is the most decentralized form of communication todaymaking policing the Internet a virtually futile 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 watch to seewho goes where and if that place is appropriate. The Internet has big to be aglobal network. Just because one country deems something inappropriate does notmean that another will comply with the decision and follow the ruling. If plug-in pictures of bestiality was banned 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 outside 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 turn shut down by the police, butstill another appeared (Censorship and the Internet 1). on that point exists today noway of effectively tracking and determining from where a bulletin was posted,especially with the automatic dialing and encryption technology available. Thuseven stressful to censor the Internet as a whole would be only an exercise infutility.     Although pornography and potentially destructive material exist on theInternet, not all potentially offensive material shows violent sex acts with