If the government were to monitor someoneâ€™s internet, it is argued that their freedoms could be imposed on. People that oppose government monitoring say that it would be unconstitutional because of the violation. The ninth amendment can be violated depending on a personâ€™s interpretation of the constitution. A strict interpretation would believe that it is a violation but a loose interpretation would claim it is not a violation because the internet was not available as the constitution was written, so the government could claim the right to monitoring the
Similar to Frisby, this is a regulation of a virtual traditional public forum for a substantial government interest that is sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet that end. Just like the valid ordinance that limited where protestors can picket, Section 202.5 limits where the individual can go, and does not target based on what the message conveyed is. Essentially the statute is content neutral because it regulates one’s ability to access the website in the first place not what is being expressed. Section 202.5 is a specifically a content neutral time, place, manner regulation of protected speech because it bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook, which inadvertently limits their expression of speech on the social networking
The social media platform itself is not harmful. At times, an inappropriate post or an event portrayed through social media triggers anger and outcry. Sometimes, this anger is directed towards social media platforms. This, however, is misplaced because it is not the platform that caused the issue or event. Furthermore, by design, social media tools are intended for good purposes.
If they had that amount of control it would be crushing. We would no longer be able to post opinions online if the government didn 't approve. Which would violate our freedom of speech and freedom of press. Now the government should have control to the extent where they aren 't taking down opinions and posts because they don 't like it. Thankfully the government has restrictions on what they can do to the internet.
For a well known company to post on social media, it is always wise to refrain from publishing any content which is inappropriate. Another strategy would be, to know your audience before publishing anything to public especially on social media. By knowing and understanding the different backgrounds on the public, it could eliminate any wrong moves
Identity and Expression Digital identity in the likes of freedom of expression, is contended by some to be constrained due to the impact it has to contemporary digital society, with the that freedom suggestion of expression infringes on other people 's rights and cause harm such as cyberbullying. Patently shown in ' The Price of Shame ‘video, the case examines Monica Lewinsky whose online identities were viewed and humiliated by millions. The scenario links closely to the reading of Fuchs, social media does not cause social issues, it magnifies them , ICT applications such as Facebook or snapchat are implements which aid in these social problems, scholars see them as platforms for behavior i.e. identity to be expressed, which often gives this impression for a trend to be growing. ‘The price of shame’ demonstrates how the web can magnify an issue and have lasting effects (reinforce the notion of the momentum of ICTS) due the marketing ideology businesses aim to make money from the extra attention ICT media gains, through the web 2.0 the internet acts as a supplier while the people who fixate and share it act as the consumers; falsifying that internet is perpetually renewing itself; Christian Fuchs (2014) critiques such to be corporate imperialism, denoting the digital society battles between intention and attention.
Privacy is something that should not be available to anyone else except our self’s. Author George Orwell, of the book 1984 let’s us know that a totalitarian government that has no respect for people’s privacy has a large impact on them. We the people do not like to be told that we are being watched since it leads them to want to break the rules that they must follow. This book lets us know how a government with too much control and too much accessibility to one’s privacy leads to people breaking the rules and regulations set for them. The book 1984, foreshadows how the future would be.
Luckily, there are several solutions to decrease or stop cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is a serious issue that no one should have to undergo because it negatively affects their self-image, causing them to feel insecure and unsafe. Cyberbullying is not typically seen
State and Local governments also have agencies that monitor suspected criminals. Some people argue the government monitoring internet use restricts citizens_Ñé rights due to multiple amendments and laws. The difference is the extent of the duty each level of government has to monitor people_Ñés internet use. The United States_Ñé Government should have full responsibility to monitor the internet, so they may interrupt criminal activity and terrorism before it happens and protect innocent citizens from danger.
The right to be forgotten is one such right, which a person couldn’t have imagined the same few years back, but with the rise of the social media and the growing importance of search engines, the need for such a right to be developed arises. It’s not a right to be purged from the memory of people who know you, but rather to control how information about you appears online. If there is no legitimate reason for keeping it, the data should be removed from their system. The ruling in the Costeja case emphatically stated that wherever it appears that the information is “incorrect, inaccurate, irrelevant or excessive for the processes of data processing, individuals have a right to ask the search engines to remove the links with personal information about them. The right to be forgotten is indeed a valuable tool for keeping a check on the content which is being linked online by the search engines, but at the same time it is becomes a dangerous tools in the hands of the people who demand the content to be removed which could also be considered as a threat to freedom of speech and expression, say for instance a leader of political party who is a probable candidate for some elections would definitely want to segregate the flattery news about him displayed on the search engines from the news which is not going to get him votes from the public.
Gladwell argue that online social networks are "weak-tie" and that it leads to high-risk activism. The type of connection you have with acquaintances who might merit their friendship on Facebook, or follow on Twitter, but not, for example, have the opportunity to borrow your car. Activism is an action
Accept only those “facts” that support what you already believe” This quote may explain why a facebook user never reads or shares article that goes against their preconceived notions because, according to Pitt, in today’s world people want to ignore inconvenient truths. Sunstein points out, “ The consequence is the “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust, and paranoia.” Pitts concludes “And when people are determined to believe a lie, there is nothing more futile than the truth.” arguing further that the rumors and mistrust can create an alternative history based not on facts but stereotypes passed from generation to generation. Both columnists explore the result of people who do not seek out information that contrasts their opinion. Sunstein explains the spread of fake news through the studies of facebook users while Pitts uses personal experience to demonstrate the lack of critical thinking he sees through the eyes of responders to his
Same problem applies here: The VPN service provider can easily view your unencrypted traffic & use it against you. It happened at least once that law enforcment infiltrated such a service and brought a whole organisation of internet criminals down. The conclusion therefor is, that such ways to remain anonymous might be efficient but you are always forced to trust the provider of the proxy/VPN service you want to use. In reality, this cannot be achived. You do not know who is behind a service and even if this person can be trusted, he or she will definitely not be allowed to tell you that the service is infiltrated by the government, not to mention the danger of such services being
In the article “How to Protect Your Reputation in The Digital Age,” Greg Beato, the editor for Reason magazine, claim that within the digital age of the internet no one is truly secured or private. Beato argued with the internet many had adopted negative personas to ridicule other as they believe that their action has no impact and consequences. Beato argued that eventually these people will go so far as playing judge and jury with others social life’s and harm reputation’s in the process, but he asserts that it’s easier than ever for others to find you on the internet than ever. Beato believes that what you do on the internet resonate more about you than you think, and they speak and represent you. As he reminds us that people represent themselves
People are permitted to create bonds with strong face-to-face ties, instead of trying to create strong ties over a computer screen. Users are allowed to do whatever they desire to do over a computer screen without being disciplined or moving, but this does not let us express any our thoughts on any situation. Social media, like Facebook, made it is easy for people to express what they believe, but technology has made it harder for one to express those words into action. Strong ties allow witnesses to express their action as easy as expressing their