The only thing we can do is shut down the access to the website if they're in violation of the law. There are better ways to deal with piracy in cyberspace than with the heavy hand of censorship. Chris Evans argued that we live in a climate in which people don't think that they can change society and that this is the context in which free speech comes under question. Literally hundreds of thousands of people put the truth on the internet. Consequently, these crimes destroy greatly network security and enables computer users endure heavy losses.
All involved simply need to sit down and figure out a way to combat it that does not infringe on the rights of others. I agree completely that piracy needs to be stopped. The truth is free speech empowers Internet users. This entire idea is a joke, as is the rest of this pathetic system. Jamie Helton What this boils down to is major corporations Time Warner, Fox, Disney, etc. I will have none of it.
They all have different views on the issue, although who is right or wrong has not yet been decided. Only 10% of kids actually do bad stuff on the internet, but what about the other 90%? Many have falling victim and have lost all because of the easy access that these websites have given to thieves. To advocate censorship is to advocate the libel laws. According to cybercrime report in Australia, in 2012, online adults who have experienced cybercrime in their lifetime took up sixty-seven percent. Censorship is not far behind.
For example, this paper probably wouldn't be possible if the Internet was censored because of the words and opinions I ran across during the research. But if they start to pass bills into law that allow monitoring of citizens on the web. Political reasons Most people in the west believe that political censorship is something that only oppressive regimes carry out. Lets say two countries are fighting. A final reason the Internet should be censored is due to violations of intellectual property rights.
Censuring the internet will just drive the criminals to take a different tack while punishing those of us who have nothing to do with the crime in the first place. At what point can the government decide what to censor and what not to? Because it is good business to do so. The only way that the World and it's information can be free is to have total freedom of the Internet. Maybe podcasts in general will have to cease being? The internet is our gift to that world, giving them greater access to information and freedom of speech, and escape from repressive regimes. When a man can earn more from a movie appearance than a doctor can in a lifetime, something is wrong. Under no circumstances should the government be permitted to censor the Internet, and this is a weak and feeble bill in the first place. List of Pros of internet Censorship 1.
The Internet will no longer be a free medium of expression of ideas because now the government will be able to shut down anything that may be perceived as copyright infringement—which constitutes a broad range of what exists online. Keeping that privacy had become a growing concern for many businesses and consumers. One of these is the proliferation of amateur porn. . Hence, it is vital that the government should censor the Internet for national security. Just because you, one worthless little person, thinks it's corrupting kids or the internet as it was made, you're way out of line. The idea of law was intended for order and avoiding citizens from revolting and rebelling against the government.
Technophobia and Technophilia The Great Debate: Should we censor the Internet? We all feel compassionate for the families of these Americans whose lives were taken in the most horrifying way. But it is possible to prevent children from going on inappropriate sites by the Government censoring the internet. And this anti-piracy bill will make us safer yet. Just ask Valve Software about it. I've called every one of my senators, and representatives and expressed my complete opposition of these bills. You've seen how people are treated in China. However, when the point was raised about child pornography being an emotive issue which is often used to argue for broader censorship, Dixon emphasised that we must guard against the use of this argument.
I mean, the more you opress people, the more they'll push back. This can also be used in private email. These are subjective terms and it should not be up to governments or agencies to decide what we can or cannot view. Second, racist hate speech is bad in the street or on a website and it is generally considered unacceptable to allow it. Yes, there's piracy, yes, there's a lot of misinformation, but there are better ways to deal with those issues than resorting to censorship. I think the buck needs to stop with the user. In our world Today, most people have the right to read whatever they want, write whatever they want, all with very minimal government control.