Someone proof read this, thx

Sunkorzien · Posted: 03/27/03 - 10:07 Post subject:

The responsibility of censoring the Internet in order to protect children should be left to parents due to certain legal and constitutional ramifications.

Adam Schwartzberg
Brent Cobb
3/24/2003
English IV: Science Fiction
Debate (Internet Censorship)

Internet censorship is a common controversial topic today. Many times in congress and other assemblies, the issue of constitutionality has come up over censorship of the Internet. Censoring inappropriate material in order to protect children is a noble and just cause, but it can not be done without violating certain constitutional rights.
The first amendment states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Clearly, censoring the Internet is a violation of this first amendment. While we believe that Internet censorship is necessary to protect the youth of America, it is not up to the United States government to put into place legislature, programs, or agencies to censor the Internet due to the constitutional issues. We believe that parents should be ultimately responsible for what their children come in contact with on the Internet.
We believe that it is relatively straightforward and economical to put into place multiple safeguards in order to protect the youth of America from damaging material on the Internet. Some of these safeguards include a rating system, software monitoring, parental monitoring, and more responsibility placed upon internet service providers.
A rating system could be easily put into place and administrated by any number of government agencies. This would allow parents to better comprehend exactly what it is that their children are viewing. This rating system would be completely constitutional because it does not actually censor the material but only allows for a better understanding of the nature of the website. Such a rating system is already in place for movies and video games.
Software monitoring is something that can be easily installed and configured by parents for a relatively cheap price. This software can report to the parents which websites their children have been visiting or can disallow the visitation of any inappropriate websites altogether.
The two safeguards previously listed both rely upon one thing: the concern and involvement of the parents. If parents do not take appropriate action to ensure the safety of their child, then of course their child runs the risk of running into inappropriate material. That is why the parent is ultimately responsible for the content that their children view.
Another safeguard that could be put into place is more involvement of internet service providers in protecting children. America Online already has many different pieces of software in place that protect children. Other internet service providers could easily follow suit by distributing similar software. Another way that internet service providers could protect children is by having a list of websites that are inappropriate. Parents could request that the internet service provider block access to these websites for their account, denying their children access to these websites. All of the aforementioned safeguards would cost much less than having a government agency control Internet censorship and they are all constitutional, unlike many other solutions.
The terrorist attacks of September 11th have also had an effect on Internet censorship. The government now realizes how vulnerable America really is at home, and how much information passes through the Internet. Terrorists could theoretically disrupt daily life by launching attacks on the Internet, specifically targeting the United States. This threat led to the passing of the PATRIOT ACT which allows the government to spy on web surfers. While this is a necessary measure in preventing terrorist attacks on the Internet, it would be on the verge of being unconstitutional to have it put into place permanently.
Internet censorship is still a controversial matter because it is so new. There is not a whole lot of information on it, and not many people know anything about it. While it is necessary to protect children through controlling the Internet to a certain degree, full censorship can not be allowed. It is not constitutional, and it would severely restrict the flow of normal information on the Internet. Ultimately, parents are the key in controlling what their children do on the Internet, not the United States government.

Someone proof read this, thx

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK