INTERNET CENSORSHIP: DEPRECIATING HUMAN COMMUNICATION

Specific Purpose: I want my audience to feel that Internet should not be censored by any authority.

Introduction:
Internet today is one of the most powerful global communication tools. Millions of people are using the Internet, which is the fastest and most abundant form of information about almost any topic or subject. People can download and pull information just a mouse click away. But imagine this, sometimes in the future you are doing a research on sex in the workplace, and you cannot find anything on the Internet because it has been censored and your topic is sex. Censorship is the change in which it limits in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives; such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes. Today, I will present you points of view of both sides of the issue and how they base their argument on how they view about this information medium. After extensive research through journals, Internet information, and books in the field, I will provide you with evidence explaining why the Internet should not be censored by any authority.
Outline:
I. Counter argument: Most of my opponents believe that Internet censorship will protect children from the exposure to the indecent and inappropriate materials on the Net, which is very dangerous in the hands of naïve and curious youngsters. I’m going to show you that there is no clear boundary of the rate-system of “indecent” material. Besides, Internet censorship is not always the best policy.
A. Internet censorship protects children from the exposure to indecent material on the Net.
1. Unanswered questions about rating “indecent” material
2. Different countries, states, cultures have different set of laws, standard, and definitions of indecent obscenity
B. Internet has too much sexual and violent content.
1. Parental control software systems: NetNanny, Surf Watch…
2. Voluntary rating system allows web publishers to have their site rated by Recreational Software Advisory Council
II. Supportive argument: Internet should not be censored because it, first, violates the First Amendment, Internet growing too fast makes it impossible to control, and Internet censorship prohibit access to genuine and serious material.
A. Internet censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.
1. Place for people to exchange information, discuss issues, confront problems, and express themselves
2. Panel of three federal judges found CDA (government’s attempt to regulate online content) unconstitutional
B. Huge volume, fast growing and changing Internet make difficult to censor.
1. Free flow of information makes it an unprecedented information medium
2. Too many back alleys and hidden-holes in the Internet
3. Opportunities are endless like human vocabulary
C. Internet censorship prohibits access to genuine and serious material for research.
1. One can find difficult to find information on certain topic in result of Internet censorship
2. Internet censorship fails to acknowledge materials that have literary, historical, scientific, or artistic value
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the Internet should not be censored. Every day, there are more and more people who are connecting to the Internet for the convenience of an informational database. Everyone should have an equal right to use the Internet instead of being restricted from some part of the information. Censorship is a violation of the First Amendment. The government cannot control the continuous and fast growing data of the Internet. There are a lot of options for parents to limit their children’s access to the Internet. Parents are responsible for their children’s disciplines and intellectual development. Just like any other media, the Internet deserves to be free from censorship. Going along, they should become an unimaginable unexplored potential for the education and expansion of the minds of virtually everyone on earth.
Bibliography:
Garber, Joseph R. “Dirty Bits, Naughty Bytes.” Forbes 26 Aug. 1996: Gen’l Reference
Ctr Gold. CD-ROM. Allen Pub. Libraries. Apr. 1997.
Quittner, Joshua. “Free Speech for the Net: a Panel of Federal Judges Overturns the
Communications Decency Act.” Time 24 June 1996: Gen’l Reference Ctr Gold. CD-ROM. Allen Pub. Libraries. Apr. 1997.
FranZiskGo, San. “Censorship is Bad.” Ultimate San Francisco Resource (Mar. 1996): 3
pp. Online. Netscape 2.0. Internet. 2 Apr. 1997.