Internet Censorship
This is an excerpt from the paper...
With the present rate of technological development, it is easy to imagine at some point in the not-so-distant future a time when we communicate regularly with human beings who live, sell things, and commit crimes from outer space. Should that scenario become a reality, who will have jurisdiction over the universe? Can space without boundaries be divided into jurisdictional entities? Examining this plausible future we begin to understand the complexities involved with our modern reality of trying to censor and police the Internet and cyber space. To most people trying to regulate the Internet is as laughable as trying to regulate space itself. The regulation of the Internet is perplexing because its advent rendered obsolete the very geographical boundaries that traditional law uses as a basis for jurisdiction. The Internet has also crossed boundaries that traditional law enforcement jurisdiction views as off-limits without court orders or urgent probable cause…the inside of an individual’s home. Nonetheless, since its inception the threat of regulation and censorship has hung over the head of the Internet as much as any sword ever hung over Damocles. Like most censorship and regulation efforts, the strongest efforts to impose censorship and regulation on the Internet have come from those who stake out the moral high ground. The online content of the Internet has always been subject to the laws of the land, but any censorship or regu
. . .
t acts, and pot smokers. This kind of mentality is so narrow and ignorant of the facts that it barely deserves mention. However, anyone not convinced of its ignorance need only read the following incident. A 15 year old boy committed suicide by putting his neck on a railroad rail until a train came by. He was killed instantly obviously. Investigators found a print-out from a Web page called Suicide FAQ, “The Suicide FAQ found on a Web page by Duke University student Chris Economakes, details the ins and outs of 40 suicide methods. Method number 14, ‘Jumping in Front of Trains’ suggests that it is ‘probably better to put your neck on the lines, since a glancing blow would probably break your spine (and cripple you)’” (Lemons 1). While the death of the boy is tragic, does anyone really believe a teenager intent on committing suicide would not choose one method one way or another? Does anyone really think the ISP, the content maker, or someone else should be liable for this boy’s death any more than the operator of the train? Should we outlaw all trains? The point is legislation cannot legislate personal choice or morality or common sense. Those who are intent on molesting children, committing suicide, or smoking pot wil
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Internet Explorer, Internet Communications, Policing Space, Internet Doing, Bill Rights, Berlin Bangkok, SurfWatch CyberNanny, Metropolitan Police, Commission FTC, internet content, bill rights, censorship regulation, internet content coalition, supreme court, content coalition, internet censorship, regulation internet, international scope, censor internet, web page, censorship regulation internet, communication decency act, content coalition advocates, international scope chaotic,
Approximate Word count = 3849
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
