Liberty Con
|
|||||||||||||||||
Liberty / Equality / Participation / Property / Surveys / Notre Dame Web Group / Teaching Tool Contact Us / Other Groups / Public Private Home / Definitions |
|||||||||||||||||
Introduction |
|||||||||||||||||
Turning to the |
|||||||||||||||||
Limited Censorship and Tempered Discussion | |||||||||||||||||
In contrast though to the ideology that
views no holds bar free speech as imperative for democracy, are those
that feel tempered discussion and limited censorship are absolutely
necessary and beneficial for healthy democracies.
We turn to a few of these arguments now. |
|||||||||||||||||
The Threat of Hate Speech | |||||||||||||||||
Viewed in a light that exposes
the more controversial sites on the web, the arguments above prove very
convincing. Controversial
sites, such as the “Nuremberg Files,” are argued to incite violence
through hate speech, which according to those more supportive of
restriction, is not free speech and is not a right afforded by the First
Amendment. The |
|||||||||||||||||
Inappropriate Exchanges | |||||||||||||||||
One can also trace the history of the
Internet to note the recent trends toward a more legalized web.
Many see the Internet as a physical realm, not unlike other
mediums such as TV and radio that must be controlled in some form.
Moreover, as a marketplace tool, the Internet should guard
against false advertising and trickery.
This form of advertising “speech” shouldn’t infringe upon
the liberties of consumers. They
should be protected. |
|||||||||||||||||
Protect Our Children! | |||||||||||||||||
Much of this discussion ties into the screening of
chat boards/rooms as well as newsgroups in order to prevent children
from viewing hateful or pornographic material.
Some contend that the right of parents to decide what their child
should or should not see, must be retained and argue for the use of
filters and monitoring of public Internet forums.
Others advocate the complete removal of all explicit and violent
“filth” from the web, as it corrupts the moral society, which is
claimed, is an imperative component of decent democratic society.
Order, a part of democracy, will break down if too many people
become “hooked” by the “evil” powers of the web. |
|||||||||||||||||
Conclusion | |||||||||||||||||
Overall, the arguments advocating a stronger censorship presence provide significant backing and examples. The question usually comes down to an evaluation of what the individual’s own idea of democracy is and what aspect he or she places more emphasis on. As in the case of the “Nuremberg Files” website, those who feel freedom from threats or threatening material is an important aspect of democracy, are more likely to advocate greater censorship of sites that can be considered hate sites. Those who feel free speech is the most important aspect of any democracy will most likely argue otherwise, an idea is covered on the liberty pro page. | |||||||||||||||||
Links | |||||||||||||||||
http://www.southernillinoisdemocrats.org/SidEdit/SIDArticles/SIDArt01-02-2003.htm http://www.isil.org/resources/libertystrategies/town-hall-democracy.html
http://www.townhallcoalition.org/main.html
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~gjbush/procensr.html
http://www.gaijin.com/EvilPeople/info/censorship/
http://eserver.org/bs/37/brady.html
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0102.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-236426.html?legacy=cnet
http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/96s/070396op1.htm
|