Many countries, such as China, have laws that control the content of the Interne

Question

Many countries, such as China, have laws that control the content of the Internet and restrict their citizens' access to information. The United States, with the exception of specific areas such as cyber-bullying and child pornography, does not currently take steps to restrict its citizens' access to the Internet. unfortunately, this freedom of information does carry some cost because some information on the web can potentially be dangerous to the general public.  

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think the U.S government should censor information on the web, such as instructions for making weapons, to protect the general public? Why why not? If you think there should be some censorship, do you think such a law would violate the First Amendment right freedom of speech? Please explain your answer.

2.0Would you be willing to live with a lower level of information access to increase your sense of well-being? What topics do you feel would make you feel more secure if they were censored?

Explanation / Answer

1.

Its like a neither an Emphatic YES, nor an Emphatic NO kind of question. There is a slim dileneation between the protection, and intrusion/restriction. As you said, "Censorship on information such as instructions for making weapons" its a good idea and ofcourse necessary to restrict this sort of information. But the censorship, once applied should be restricted only that level, which is of no guarantee and ofcourse hard to implement kind of thing. To restrict somebody/everybody from access to some sort of information, one(the governement) should keep an eye on the browsing habits, and browsing history of general public. It should be as abstract as possible, and should not trace the IP addresses on who is accessing the data, at least should not be human readable, unless otherwise will lead to intrusion of privacy.

Ofcourse it is a violation of right to free speech, but its verymuch required, as it assures/guarantees others on RIGHT TO LIVE. If this sort of weapon making information is freely flowed in the internet, there is a chance of some psychic people or anti social elements may make the weapon and threaten common people and may take their lives for no reason. So, it can be considered that, it is required to make sure everything happens within the law abiding limits. But note that, it is a good move, provided it is restricted only to that level, and not beyond that.

The thing that bothers everybody else is, it may not be restricted to the governement, or that governement may look into the private details of people which will violate the so said right to freedom. In my opinion, there is no loss in have some censorship, but should be restricted to some abstract level, and should not go beyond that.

2. I personally prefer no censorship, even if it increases my sense of well-being. I being a learned person, personally vote for liberal, unrestricted information access, compared to that of censored.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.