Abstract This paper answers the question of whether the U.S. government should be allowed to censor material on the Internet, or whether that would be a violation of free speech. The position that Internet material should not be censored is justified using the principle of freedom of speech, and also because of differences that exist between the Internet and other media.
Abstract This is a persuasive paper that analyzes the proponents of censorship. In recent years, the American entertainment industry has undergone vast changes in aspects such as music, television and Internet, and what began as innocent entertainment is no longer. Censorship is emerging into the limelight once again, as children are immensely affected by what they see, and their intentions of repeating what they see makes censorship ever more important today. The amount of violence in all forms of entertainment must somehow be regulated or censored in some way to protect the innocent youth of today.
From the Paper "Please note the following: ?Where Them Ho's At;? ?Tits;? and ?Simple Instructions for Assembling a Bomb with Household Materials.? The title of a song, a word used in a TV drama, and something easily accessible from the Internet. What might these three things have in common? They are all salient factors in the corruption of today's youth. These are not the types of programs and songs our country's future leaders should have access to. "Entertainment" such as this has been proven to cause aggression in young children, causing them to be more prone to use violence to settle disputes. It also exposes children to adult situations they are not yet suited to understand, which in turn confuses them. More stringent laws must be passed for the sake of our nation's impressionable, innocent young children."
Abstract This writer of this paper examines both sides of the controversial internetcensorship debate and asks if instituting regulations that would censor certain websites and materials infringes on our basic human rights. Those who support internetcensorship and those who oppose it both agree that adults must provide children with a safe and supportive environment in which to play and learn. This paper discusses the child protection and adult censorship debates which are often confused. This paper also details the various methods and strategies in blocking questionable websites on computers that are accessed by minors.
From the Paper "This issue is an ongoing fierce debate both here in America and across the globe. Much of the debate is centered around practical concerns about any kind of solution. I therefor think it necessary that we examine our issue at hand both within ethical and practical concerns. If we come across too many practical problems, we may find that regulation may indeed need to be in the hands of the individuals. But as I intend to show, I think there are several viable options that clearly and effectively would regulate the current status of the Internet to which I am objecting."
Abstract The paper discusses the mass proliferation of information on the Internet and highlights the issue of ownership, accuracy and privacy. The paper relates that the supporters of censorship argue that it is in the best interest of the public to protect them from deceitful or harmful information, however the central argument made in this investigation is that the Internet should not be censored. The paper considers these issues and provides a balanced overview.
Outline:
Introduction
Literature Review
Synthesis of the Data
Conclusion
From the Paper "Although support for internet censorship demonstrates a clear need to protect users from questionable and offensive content, Kreimer (2006) reports that the decision to implement internet censorship will serve as a slippery slope for the degradation of the freedom of speech. As reported by this author, supporters of internet censorship have argued that this process is necessary to protect individuals from harm. However, Kreimer argues that when making these claims, scholars do not provide any justification for what content should be censored and by whom. As the realm of "questionable" contend expands, internet users will witness a reduction in their ability to access information and to share information. Over the long-term, Kreimer asserts, this will erode basic free speech rights."
Abstract This paper explores both sides of the internetcensorship debate and settles upon the advocacy of unbridled free speech. The following topics are discussed in detail-- the presence of child pornography on the internet; the unique global audience that the internet attracts; the subsequent inconsistent standards for "indecent material"; the efforts of conservatives and liberals to enact internet-related legislation; and the possible consequences of curtailing the internet's voice. The paper ends with the notion that silencing "indecent material" on the internet would silence a world-wide web of voices that is still growing as we speak.
From the Paper "Harmful objects are kept from children by locks on doors and tabs on cupboards. Now, right-wing Conservatives wish to apply this same child-proofing strategy to the Internet. The Communications Decency Act ? backed by such groups as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition ? would have made it illegal to transmit "indecent" material to children online, had it not been struck down by the Supreme Court. The similarly themed Child Online Protection Act sought to demand "ID verification" from those that visit "adult" sites. The problem with such legislation is that the Internet ? unlike television, radio, or print ? is trafficked by a global audience unaffected by the strength of broadcast signals or the location of paper routes. For this very reason, provincial definitions of "pornography" or "indecent material" cannot be applied to the Internet without abridging First Amendment protection. To ban pornography from the Internet would be to curtail a medium that is fully deserving of the right to free speech."
Abstract This paper examines the thesis that the government is playing a wild card in its attempt to censor the Internet. It discusses several laws and examines how public libraries who do not censor the Internet can suffer funding losses.
From the Paper "In Antigone, Sophocles wrote, "There is nothing in the world so demoralizing as money." Today's society revolves around money. Without money, no person, organization, corporation, or entity can function. It is well known that in the hands of the government, when push comes to shove, money pushes, money shoves, and, more often than not, money prevails. In other words, if the government wants something done, money is the wild card. The issue of Internet censorship is no different. For years, the United States government has pushed to place censors on the Internet. After having censorship legislation stuck down by the Supreme Court, the government turned its attention to censorship of the Internet in public libraries and public schools. In recent months, the issue of censorship of the Internet in public libraries and public schools has reached a boiling point. When closely studied, it is obvious that the government has chosen to pursue censorship within libraries and public schools because all other censorship avenues have been blocked. Furthermore, it is also obvious that the government is playing their wild card in their attempt to censor, essentially backing libraries into a comer with legislation that denies public libraries and schools significant amounts of governmental funding if Internet censorship guidelines are not followed. Because the issue of Internet censorship centers on the First Amendment, it is important to understand exactly what the freedom of speech guarantees United States citizens. Since its inception, the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech has plagued all forms of."
Abstract This paper discusses the government's attempt to censor pornographic material on the internet which the writer feels would infringe on the freedom of expression. This paper also includes a brief but detailed history of the internet. This paper examines the various bills the U.S. government is trying to pass to prevent misuse of the Net. The writer of this paper also discusses the installation of censoring software as an alternative solution to government censorship.
From the Paper "The Internet can also be compared to a church. In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and they can either take part or not. It's the choice of the user. The Internet has no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The constituent networks may have presidents and CEO's, but that's a different issue; there is no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole."
Abstract A paper which explains how the American Congress has interpreted the First Amendment when deciding on levels of censorship. The paper explores the different issues of what is and what is not defined as freedom of speech. Examples of what is not covered by the First Amendment may be obscenity, "fighting words" and incitement. The paper also discusses how, with the growth of the Internet, the laws should grow with technology and adapt themselves accordingly.
From the Paper "An area which is not yet completely clear is the subject of Commercial Speech. Deceptive commercial speech can be banned by government, but further regulation of corporations must be taken on a case by case basis. The government can also control speech that is intended and likely to incite lawless action. This also applies in a situation where the speech poses a clear and present danger to the nations security. This is known as "incitement" and was decided in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio."
Abstract This paper argies that censorship is a clear violation of the first amendment. The writer shows how censorship has been taken way out of hand in the past few years by government and society which has led to the confusion of what exactly the definition of "morally wrong" really is and what it entails. Topics covered are pornography, alternative political views, narcotics and more.
From the Paper "When people think of censorship, the dominant after-thought is pornography. Granted, pornography, especially on the Internet, is a huge issue, censorship encompasses a vast array of topics. Those being censored feel as though something important is being kept from them. How valid is the First Amendment, which grants freedom of speech, if censorship exists at all? It may start from early childhood, with parents not allowing their children to view certain television shows but it eventually stems in to a deeper subject matter. Censoring students and censoring what students can read, view, or watch disrupts the educational cycle and breeds a definite conflict. Censorship would be more widely accepted if reasoning existed as to why censoring the material occurred in the first place. Any concept or idea becomes more valid if the rationale is understood."
This paper addresses recent concerns about Internet privacy, concentrating on legal and ethical concerns. In particular, a bill is being introduced in the Senate this spring which aims to codify in U.S. law the rights and responsibilities of information
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 7 sources, 2002, $ 62.95
Abstract This paper addresses recent concerns about Internet privacy, concentrating on legal and ethical concerns. In particular, a bill is being introduced in the Senate this spring which aims to codify in U.S. law the rights and responsibilities of information suppliers. In the past, the United States has taken a "hands-off" approach to regulating information, in the hopes that the industry will engage in self-regulation. Self-regulation is not advancing rapidly enough to satisfy either the Federal Trade Commission or the recent European Community Directive. The paper presents and supports the opinion that it is imperative that the United States pass legislation which will address Internet privacy issues and forestall any restrictions U.S. companies may have in dealing with Europe.
Abstract This paper outlines the five major filtering software products, and conducts a discussion of their pros and cons. The paper assesses how, when, or even if these filters should be utilized in schools or public libraries. The paper also attempts to answer whether filtering is unconstitutional censoring; whether public institutions have the right -- or the duty -- to filter; whether the companies that produce filtering software are truly objective; and whether there are better ways to keep minors from accessing adult material.
Abstract
I. Overview
II. Filtering Software
1. Cyber Patrol
2. Surf Watch
3. Net Nanny
4. CyberSitter
5. BESS
III. Is Filtering Interfering with "Free Speech" in Libraries and Schools?
IV. Who Are the "Guardians" of Morality on the Internet?
V. Some Conclusions
From the Paper "Today's internet provides access for all kinds of information, from useful to salacious. Access is available to anyone with the knowledge of how to use a computer. Some of the information available for mature audiences in various web sites ought to be restricted to adults. There are five major software suppliers of filters that block unwanted information and make it unavailable to children. The problems of installing such filtering software in public locations, such as schools and libraries has brought a spirited defense of First Amendment rights. The problems are not that materials might be "censored" and unavailable to minors,. But who should do the filtering. The government has passed a "Communications Decency Act". However, the on-going arguments to be presented in the body of this research paper is whether the government has a right (or the power) to censor materials that should, properly, be the responsibility of individual parents."
Abstract This paper discusses the good and bad sides of censorship and points out the need for a balance. The paper focuses on three types of censorship: military censorship, censorship of pornography and violence, and ideological censorship. The paper contains an annotated bibliography.
From the Paper "The concept of censorship is relatively simple: material that is harmful to people in some way should not be allowed to circulate where they can see, hear or be influenced by it. Material that incites people to commit acts of violence..."
Abstract The topic of censorship is usually applied to less-developed countries, but it is crucial to remember that censorship is found in varying aspects in all countries. This paper addresses England as a country that promotes censorship as both a mechanism for civil defense and a means of ensuring the welfare of their citizens.
Abstract The focus of this paper is to discuss the censorship of a Newberry Medal children's book, "The Highest Power of Lucky," by Susan Patron. More specifically, the writer questions whether the word "scrotum" should cause a Newberry Medal children's book to be banned from libraries. The writer also discusses whether librarians have the right to ban a book because it has a word or phrase that relates to sex. The writer maintains that the censorship of books is wrong, especially when the book is being banned due to one word or phrase.
Outline:
Looking at the Book, "The Highest Power of Lucy"
Why the Author Used the Word
Censoring Children's Books
Censorship Creating Problems with Educational Staff
The Problems with Censorship
From the Paper "Only at the end of the book does Lucky trust her guardian to ask the meaning of the word. Lucky is similar to many students today who have single parents in their lives. Lucky can also be compared to many latchkey children who fend for themselves while their parents are at work. Many of these children learn words and actions that are not appropriate, but it is a part of their every day life. Reading about Lucky will not reveal words that these children know anyway."
"When deciding to ban a book, the librarian should consider the purpose of the book. Why has the author created this book? What is the main purpose of the book? These questions should be considered before deciding whether the book is inappropriate. The themes of the book center on Lucky becoming a grown-up who needs to learn about language and body parts. If Lucky does not learn the meaning of words from her guardian, then more than likely she will learn about different words from her peers. Children will learn the definitions to different words whether they do it through parents, friends, or peers. Would it be better to learn different words from parents or peers?"
Based on the premise that the media dictates our body images, this paper asserts that the judicious use of censorship could help combat eating disorders.
It is a simple fact that 15-year old, rail-thin girls are modeling clothes targeted at the 20-35
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, 2002, $ 35.95
Abstract There is a clear and identifiable link of causation between the media and the engaging in self-destructive behaviors by consumers that could be easily broken with judicious use of censorship. Overwhelmingly, research demonstrates that there are direct links between images seen on television and in magazines and perceptions of the self among consumers of those images. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that through a conscientious censorship effort we can effectively end the epidemic of body image and related eating-disorder problems that has been wracking our culture for generations.
