The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Should the government control the Internet? Or Internet content?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,395 times Debate No: 27145
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I agree with this statement. I think that government should control the Internet, because nowadays even children use the Internet. And such sites as, for example, porno sites influence on their minds. Sometimes even if you do not want to open obscene sites it opens itself. That is one of the main reason. In order to protect children from that it would be better if government control it.

Second, those people who express their opinions on different forums in a very impolite way. Of course, everyone can have their own opinion and they have the right to say it, but they could say it nicer. If government will control by, for example, blocking the account, then perhaps people would behave more politely.

That are my reasons why I think the government should control the Internet.


I suspect that the government does control the Internet in a variety of ways that you may have not considered, however to actually take control of the Internet and the general public views will never happen. It is a violation of the the first Amendment, the freedom of speech as well as a few other Amendments. What you are suggesting is that the government should take over and monitor rude and warrant less remarks, I say to you that you should probably grow thicker skin, don't let what the nitwits of the world believe or say bother you.

You are astute in recognizing that children are using the internet on a broad level today, but truth is I suspect that those children have good and decent parents whom have parental controls in place to gauge where a child may go on the internet and what a child may view and/or participate in. Unfortunately that child becomes a teenager and is eventually given full access to world wide web, it is at this time that misfortune and the teenager meet, although I have to support that those cases are few and far between. However, I do recognize that Chris Hanson has delivered to the public arena a good visual of how both teenagers and pedophiles are misusing a good thing.

I have to disagree with you that the government should be involved in the regulation of the internet on any level, if that were to happen yet another civil right will be impeded and once again we will have controversy.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, it is not about bothers me it or not. As you know one of the last situations that caused the conflict between happened because of the video which was posted on the Internet. The video about prophet Muhammad offended Muslims. In order to avoid that kind of situations there should be control over it.

Then, children go to this sites not because they want to, but accidentally. You can see a lot of adverts which are not for children. And most of the time it opens itself. It is not normal, especially nowadays when even 5 years old child can go on the Internet.

Thanks for tonight's debate.


I hope that you realize that all of the Internet is privately owned, meaning that the government couldn't control it even if they wanted to, (, it is simply too big. However it would be possible to censor what is allowed on the Internet, but that in itself would be task of great effort, although I do understand that China, Japan, and Ireland (I think, no reference) have attempted to do just that. And too, what you're representing is a clear and concise breach of the First Amendment, the right to free speech. The government cannot control free speech.

There is a great deal of effort put into attempting to censor and/or study what people write, some of these things often produce red flags to our government, but truth is those places on the Internet were already taboo, and generally we know it (ie. Anarchist Cook Book). However these are sites that the individual would have to know about first and then secondly have to seek out. I do support that often a parent or some other adult may very well be at the computer, under his/her own login and leave the computer, thus making it easy for a child to find things, but the child would have to know what to look for.

In the United States the computer manufacturers have made it easy to control and censor what anyone can see on a computer by installation of options directly on the computer. They are extremely difficult to "get around," if you don't believe check your own. And too, most of the web servers have options in place that can restrain individuals (ie. children) from accessing certain areas on the Internet. It's very easy to do and common practice amongst parents. Please consider that at five years of age a child is just beginning to understand his As, Bs, and Cs, it is unlikely that a conglomeration of any letters haphazardly banged into the address bar would produce porn, nor any other vile site.

I have been using a computer for exactly thirty-three years, I have yet to accidentally go anywhere on the Internet that I didn't choose to go. And I have never seen a site open up on it's on, there has to be some sort of attention given to it. I have seen advertisements open on their own, but generally they are related to whatever search the individual is attempting, check this on your own. I would consider housecleaning products not for children but in reality every "child safe" site any child may visit will produce advertisements, it like the television thrives on this income.

Finally, it is a bit ludicrous to conceive that any company, organization, or website would invest the efforts into censoring what is said in an open forum to any individual that chooses to visit the site. Some of them do have guidelines in place, but as facebook, myspace, and craigslist have taught us they usually serve no purpose, people will get around them. The video that you referenced about Muhammad I suppose did in fact create a wave of unrest, however and more to the core of the situation, there are ideals in play that we (the general public) have no idea exist. I assure you that it was not the mere release of a trailer on a documentary that provoked the reaction that was publicized nationwide, there are things that even you and I cannot debate.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro barely offered any cohesive arguments. Con's points about private ownership and the immensity of the internet in themselves were enough to win the arguments.