Censoring the Internet

Since the internet was initiated, there have been endeavors to censor it. Many individuals accept that the web ought to be a spot where all data is permitted to stream unreservedly. Unmistakably the governments of most nations don’t share this conviction. Nowadays the web is censored to some degree all over the world. There are a few distinctive reasons that the web may be controlled in a specific nation (Hamade 34). It is not a question of whether the internet should be censored, but to what extent it should be censored.

There are a various reasons why sites get edited all things considered they can be categorized as one of three classifications. The most dubious of these classifications is for political reasons. This is usually in nations that don’t have free and reasonable democracy and where rulers are attempting to hold on to power. The control is typically to constrain access to the areas of minority groups or that repudiate what the administration has told individuals. In a few cases this can likewise incorporate oversight of destinations that are religious in nature. Generally this sort of oversight is about verifying that information that could be a danger to the authorities does not get seen by the individuals (Hamade 34).

The second reason why the web may be censored is to ensure social standards. In a few cases this kind of control gets extensive backing like laws against hate speech and child pornography. However this kind of oversight can also be stretched out to issues where there is far less agreement. For example, some countries censor sites that are known to advertise or encourage homosexuality. Religious views may also be censored in cases where they are not aligned with the predominant religion. Oversight to ensure societal standards is regularly accepted even in countries that encourage free speech (Hamade 34).

The third reason that the web may be controlled is for security reasons. This is by and large done to block websites that have a place with terrorist groups and different radicals. It can additionally be stretched out to verifying that classified information is not made accessible to general society. To a certain degree all nations participate in this kind of control albeit to different degrees (Hamade 34).

It ought to be understood that most manifestations of censorship can fall into more than one classification. This could be an issue since it gives the powers a reason to expand their oversight. Individuals may well help a few manifestations of oversight yet the risk is that it will be so natural it is not possible grow it past the first expectation. For instance in the United States, rights that were originally given to officials to control sites that are generally associated to terrorism have often been used to shut down gambling websites. In the event that this can happen in a nation that takes extraordinary pride in the freedom that it gives to its subjects then it can surely happen practically anyplace (Liang, and Lu 23).

The internet should be censored to combat various issues. It would be advisable for countries to put up standards that censor websites on grounds that allow for human rights up to the point where web content does not bring harm to the society and to the state that supports it. Censorship should be a societal rather than an individual affair. Countries that do not promote democracy should first employ democracy and then seek to censor activities that are detrimental to the society. It should be possible for any person to offer truthful information to the pubic provided that this information is does not cause societal issues (Liang, and Lu 12).

There is a need for radical actions to be made to avert youngsters being exposed to disturbing material on the internet. The larger part of today’s guardians know less about technology than their children do, and have little control over the web content their youngsters can get to. It’s not simply pornography that is an issue; the internet is brimming with improper material, including material on self-harm, anorexia, suicide and bomb making websites.

Society has long held the view that we permit parents the right to “hold power” over their kids to ensure them, to instruct them and keep them from the harsher content of the world until they are grown enough to handle them comfortably. This right is, no doubt undermined by the fast and exponential growth of the web empowered innovation, and few parents feel certain that they are sufficiently ensuring their kids as they browse through the internet (Brown 43).

There are two sound approaches to guarantee that youngsters are not exposed to hazardous or irritating content. At the level of Internet Service Provider, individual web sites could be obstructed ‘at source’ by ISPs taking responsibility and offering channels for adult sites and offering to block different types of contents, customized to the individual needs of the family unit. This would need to reach out to portable web suppliers, who are still a long behind (Liang, and Lu 23).

There ought to be a scope of decisions on what content to block, from pornography and suicide to weapon making sites. Grown-ups browse a mixed bag of providers and pay for the web services they utilize, so ought to have the capacity to change it without restraint. ISPs could also introduce different passwords for different members of the family as well.

One of the innovative ways this has been done is by Talktalk, who recommend a “Homesafe” administration to folks which permits diverse filter levels for a various forms of content, and is totally alterable and convenient for the end client.

The other way that things could be changed is with a move far from the standard .co.uk and .com Top Level Domains (TLD) for more disturbing content, to particular totally inappropriate areas of the web. As of now there is a .xxx TLD accessible for explicit sites, which would imply that a guardian would basically must be given the choice to block all sites which incorporate this end. An alternate option would be a “.18” TLD, pertinent to any age-sensitive media (Hamade 34).

There is a view that the web needs a filter for obscene and adult sites. Outside of the internet, we have bodies that persistently work to guarantee the youth are not exposed to the wrong things. This could be executed somehow on the web, whereby a site would need to have its content “appraised” before being available on the web. While it seems like a huge jump, most new sites experience testing when they are hosted to verify that a site is intact and that records and content are free of viruses. This would basically be adding an extra check to the list, and in all actuality it is a load officially carried comfortably by film producers.

Content should also be checked for security reasons. If a government can use its systems to protect the peace of its citizens by merely accessing certain content especially based on keywords, it should go ahead and employ them. This will of course mean probing into the affairs of others to ensure that content that holds information that may interrupt security within its borders is exploited. This way, the government will be maximizing its technological capacity to protect itself from harm (Liang, and Lu 23).

The issue of censorship is surrounded by controversy. In

Deed, only about 25% of internet users support it censorship(“Debate.org: Does the Internet need censorship?”, n.d.).The main controversy is however dependent on the content type. The bigger population holds that certain information should be censored to protect the community from ruining its moral standing and protect it from harm. The fear however is usually on the depth of censorship and the possibility of abusing the authority granted to certain officials. This authority risks being misused by wayward individuals for their own benefits and this can only be avoided by putting up clear guidelines on the level of access one is allowed to have to other people’s rights and at the same time protecting the public. It would be very difficult to control the content of every site independently. However, regulations can limit the use of the public sites. This way, while human rights are being observed, the country will be at a better position to offer its citizens a secure environment to cohabit and bring up children (Liang, and Lu 23).

In conclusion, content should always be censored to ensure that content is not given to the wrong audiences and to prevent threatening information from being shared on any websites. Regulations regarding the people who get access to sensitive media should also be well monitored to ensure private information is not abused. The internet should however not be censored to remove content that is legally acceptable for the sake of ensuring that important information about poor government performance does not reach its audience.

Works Cited

Brown, Ian. “Internet censorship: be careful what you ask for.” (2008): Print.

Debate.org: Does the Internet need censorship? (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2014, from http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-the-internet-need-censorship

Hamade, Samir N. “Internet Filtering and Censorship.” (2008): Print.

Liang, Bin, and Hong Lu. “Internet Development, Censorship, and Cyber Crimes in China.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice (2010): n. pag. Print.