Should the government censor the Internet to prevent Internet crimes?
Some children are exposed to violent and indecent sites or scenes on the Internet. There should be some limits like blokcing sites or suff like that.
Also, there are instructions on how to build bombs and how to make drugs online. To prevent any problems, the government should censor and delete those instructions.
I want to thank PRO for instigating this discussion; censorship is a topic that stirs me a great deal.
Although I will develop and present my full argument in the next round, I should ask to clarify a few positions at the outset. If any of these assertions are in error, I invite PRO to correct me. I will consider the following areas of discussion important to the debate otherwise.
I understand PROs argument to be:
P1: Governments should limit the free flow of ideas, debate, and speech in order to prevent crime
P2: In some cases, crime should be punished (by censorship) before it occurs
P3: Children should be victimized by law before they are able to be victimized by crime, by restrictions on what they may learn, and limits to what they may ask and what opinion they may hold
Clearly, PRO does not acknowledge the damage that can be caused by censorship, or that it represents a form of restraint. Further, since censorship is postulated as a harmful response to crime, it necessarily is being discussed here as a deterrent punishment for a crime. As such, the parties being punished (by having their access to information and ideas restricted) is not only being punished before being found guilty of illicit sexual, drug or violent behavior, but these parties are being punished before even committing the act in the first place.
How can the grassfire of protective internet censorship be contained? It seems likely that many groups will want to control what we see and hear or read or learn. How can these groups be prevented from causing even more restrictions?
There is an obvious conflict of interest involved whenever any government begins controlling what is spoken, learned, read or heard. It seems very likely that the state censoring authority would also seek to expand its grip on power by controlling public discourse. Isn't it reasonable to avoid such conflicts of interest?
Many governments and political parties are held in office thanks to donations made to them by commercial interests. These commercial interests must advertise in order to remain profitable. How could we ensure that these advertisers are not using censorship laws to their financial benefit?
Isn't it good that censoring harmful websites like making bombs and drugs is helpful to remove any possibilities of potential criminals approaching those websites in the first place? I think that is more beneficial than restricting freedom of access to those contents.
Also, it is an absolute dictatorship to make government's censoring as a law without people's consent, which only agree adapting it when there is a pledge that the government would not use it to expand its power by using it. In consideration of it, governments would not use censorship laws to expand its power or financial benefit.
Communication is an integral part of the human condition. We expand our wisdom, understanding and knowledge through communication. We learn to love and respect one another primarily through our ability to communicate our needs and wants out into the larger world.
Government by the people, for the people should only be santioned to protect the rights of its citizenry – never to ‘allow’ their exercise. A parent that feeds her child is a good parent. A parent who ‘allows’ her child to eat is not.
The very nature of the Internet and the World Wide Web makes individual, case-specific censorship impossible. In the long run, it is impossible for any government to censor the internet without shutting it all down.
The internet was designed initially in the United States in the 1960’s as a means to create “fault-tolerant” communications systems for the American military.  It was developed as a “self-healing” system that would respond to communications disruptions as “damage” that would be instantly circumnavigated.
The case against censorship must always include the case for human rights themselves – since humanity is required by its nature to communicate with one another. While the rare misuse of communication exists…fraud, threats, libel and the like, there are many more compelling reasons to strictly curtail how our liberties can be denied us.
jane_eyre forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments.
|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||6|