If Sweden, for example were to enact some law that enables internet censorship it would compromises their constitutional laws. The Swedish foundation law states that you have the right to publish whatever you want as long as it is inside the boundaries of the law and that the Swedish agencies are not allowed to investigate what’s aired in tv, radio or any other electronic device. So enacting a law that censors the internet would mean that the government is doing something illegal which out of a political view would mean suicide. Quoting article 18 of the universal human rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (UN, New York, 10/12/15) From this we can clearly see that any kind of censorship directly violates the human rights since the internet is an extension of the freedom of speech. Last but not least censoring the internet violates the definition of freedom.
When a journalist wants to report an article, interview, survey, etc. they cannot report what people need and/or want to know, they can only report what the government wants the people to know (“Censorship Effects on Society”). They do not have the freedom to express what they really want to which deprives them of their rights. The United States and many other countries see the internet as a threat and a means of control which is why information of the World Wide Web is censored (Bennett). It is believed that the government censors as a way to have control not to protect citizens; by knowing more, they have the upper
When considering what we allow our government to do, we must consider what the British government did over 200 years ago and attempted to fix. When seeing the oppression faced then, we can see that allowing any part of the US government to monitor the internet will lead to the same oppression that we faced previously that our founding fathers tried to prevent. Therefore, the government of the US at any level has no authority from the constitution to monitor the
The government has many tools in looking into people's information but the government doesn't realize that it is violating the 4th amendment by using the resources they have in looking into suspected people and that's the reason why we cannot trust our information to be safe with the government either way. David Cole, a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and national security at Georgetown University, and other legal analysts says that, “The world of computers has weakened the Fourth Amendment. "In the modern digital age, it means very, very little."(citation). The reason why he says this is because, before we had computers, no one knew who we were seeing or where we were going throughout the day, but if someone were to know they would have to wiretap our things to know. If the fourth amendment was follow the police would need a warrant to do that but in today's world we wouldn't need it anymore.
Thus the problem of national security arises and the United States government must do something to stop American citizens from joining some of the most evil and anti-American groups out there. Instead of monitoring all citizens’ internet usage, the US government can only monitor those on no-fly lists or those that have had possible ties to terror in the past. Even then, they should not monitor and restrict everything that they post or look at - possibly only key words or key websites. The aforementioned PEW Research study found that 82% of American citizens found that monitoring terrorists and terrorist suspects is perfectly okay and will uphold the citizens’ best interests. Because the government has their support and permission to do so and since the United States is a democracy, the have the responsibility to monitor terror suspects and uphold the wants and safety of the American people.
To control and to suppress is the reason why we need law. Many people hold strong on the belief that internet should be a place where information and data flows freely. Yet, from the government point of view, freedom isn’t always a good thing. There is also a point of view to counter and protect against child pornography or hate speech. Others include religious factor, terrorism as well as other sensitive information for different group of people in terms of age, countries and parties.
Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).
It has therefore proposed a working definition for a "right to privacy": The right to privacy often must be balanced against the state 's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life. Seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet requirements are examples of such laws. And while many Americans are quite aware that the government collects personal information, most say that government surveillance is
CONS OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP Less Freedom of Expression: When Internet censorship regulations are put into place, this severely cuts down on a person’s ability to express themselves through the Internet. The Internet is an atmosphere that thrives on high levels of creativity. Internet censorship serves to curb the enthusiasm of those who rely on the Internet to communicate important messages with others. Some consider freedom of expression to be a basic, inalienable human right. If a person cannot receive their basic human rights while using the Internet, then they may not even bother.
Furthermore, in many developing countries or in those with oppressive regimes, government actions are more important than the Internet in defining how information is produced and consumed, and by whom. There are so many counties that use strict censorship in their media. “Present-day examples include Russia as a territorially shrunken successor state to the former USSR, China and North Korea” (Höchli, 2010). Censorship in North Korea is known to be the most intense among the world. With a government such as theirs, they are able to take strict control over communications.