Is internet censorship good or bad?
Debate Rounds (3)
I see that you don't believe in internet censorship. Here's my outlook:
Billions of people have access to the internet, including young and precocious children. Pornographic materials can easily be accessed by those aforementioned young and precocious children, which can be extremely dangerous and highly inappropriate.
Many people may become insulted by inappropriate material, not just children; anyone is general! It can be especially dangerous to naive people, those who are mentally damaged, and the ones who are just extremely sensitive.
Thanks! I would love to see your outlook.
1. In the USA, generally about 75-80% of the population are children. By the numbers, to censor these contents, it would be unfair to the majority. What more, most pornographic websites generally has a warning to make sure. It should be the parent's responsibility to monitor their children. With only about 4% of the hundred of millions web containing pornographic content, either the parents did something wrong and/or the child is actively trying to find it.
2. This is called the freedom of speech. People should be allowed to say what they want and express their opinions. They might be insulted, or shocked, but as long as the person isn't actually being threatened its fine. At worst, it's a lunatic preaching how the earth is actually flat, but to censor that is to effectively censor free speech.
1. Limits free speech
Some people have some extreme ideas, but to stop people from viewing it is extremely undemocratic.
2. Form of Oppression
It's a slippery slope, it'll start off with banning pornography, but it suddenly becomes banning everything else. Middle Eastern countries censor the internet and may justify it by saying that all Western media are too shocking and crazy, and they must be censored. The government can select what they want their citizens to view. The internet is known as the "information highway" for a reason and when the government has control over, that they are controlling their citizens. Thus begins the oppression.
Due to time constraints, I will expand more on my arguments in my next round.
TheMajesticDudette forfeited this round.
Judging by your logic, you think that the majority matters the most, and minors don't really matter. May I also add again that those who are mentally ill also have access to the internet and can easily access pornographic materials? They can easily become confused and rather frightened. Do you have an objection to that?
Warnings are good, and I agree that parents and/or guardians need to monitor their child, but if the parents choose to neglect for a while and the child does come across a pornographic website or image, choosing to ignore any warnings, then internet censorship is going to be extremely useful.
Also, pornographic material is truly a waste of money. If you spend time interacting with inappropriate material, then your internet and service bills will rise. Perhaps internet censorship will help or at least limit it all.
Thanks! Again, I apologize for being late in the second round.
1. Should we have all of our rights taken away from us to protect an extremely small minority (only around 2% of the total population)? Should we also forbid action movies to protect people who are scared of blood, and forbid tall buildings to protect people who are scared of heights? Additionally, developmentally disabled people who live on their own are competent enough to handle the world, and those who don't live on their own will be protected from the "horrors of pornography" by their attendant or guardian.
2.Again, to repeat the previous analogy, by that logic we should forbid all violent movies because a little kid might sneak into one. What it comes down to is that we can't cater to the needs of every minority group. In the famous dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury discusses a future in which intellectual material is outlawed to prevent anyone anywhere from being offended. He writes ""Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!... Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.""
Additionally, guardians are responsible for their children. If a child views something psychologically harmful, it's their guardians fault, not the governments.
3. So what people waste money on porn. Sucks for them. It's not the responsibility of the gov to make sure noone anywhere wastes any money, views something nasty, or bruises their toes. The government isn't here to baby sit us. Additionally, it is someones intrinsic right to be able to waste money on porn, if they choose to.
What this all boils down to is that we can't take away the rights of the majority to protect every possible minority group from coming to harm. The government shouldn't babysit us and take away our rights. We have a right to do these things, including watching porn. This has also been shown by multiple supreme court cases, such ashttp://www.pbs.org...
So if you believe in the government taking away our rights to please every single special interest group and constantly babysitting us, vote Pro. Otherwise, vote Con,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins by Forfeiture if nothing else. Pro simply makes a bare assertion that there is material that is 'inapporpriate' but does not explain why it is so bad that censorship is required. Simply being insulted by inappopriate material is not reason enough for censorship to take place.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.