Proposition
Why internet censorship should be allowed
Why internet censorship should be allowed
1)
Protect children and women from sexually explicit
contents.
a.
Pornography is illegal and without the internet
censorship, there will be a lot more of these explicit videos.
2)
We should block access to North Korean site so
that they wouldn’t lure South Koreans to do jobs for them
a.
If nationals of S. Korea see this information
continually, they might get accustomed to that system and they might try to
follow that system though it’s against the basis of our government and they
know the communist regime has filed. (This could be worse for children and
adolescents.- future of our nation)
b.
False statement of facts
3)
We should block access to high security information
like for the military in the public
a.
If secretive information goes out, countries
like nk can use it to attack military center places.
4)
School computers- block youtube, mail, game
sites so that students cannot use computer other ways
a.
Help block sites that might distract students
from attractive contents to focus on studying.
Article
Are any forms of expression
not protected by the First Amendment? The Supreme Court has established several
limited exceptions to the First Amendment's protection:
FIGHTING WORDS: In the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme
Court held that so-called "fighting words...which by their very utterance
inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not
protected under the First Amendment and can be punished. The Court based its
decision on the concept that such utterances are of "slight social value
as a step to truth."
LIBEL: In the
1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held, in a
ground breaking decision, that defamatory falsehoods published about public
officials are not protected by the First Amendment and can be punished if the
offended official can prove that his/her accuser published the falsehoods with
"actual malice" -- that is, with "knowledge that the statement
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
While the Court's decision addressed a particular type of common law libel,
other kinds of "libelous statements "are also punishable.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH: In the 1976 case of Virginia Pharmacy Board v.
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Supreme Court struck down a state
ban on prescription drug advertising on First Amendment grounds. However, commercial
speech -- which includes advertising, financial and credit reports, and the
like -- still has far less First Amendment protection than other speech.
Generally, it can be banned if it is, on the whole, misleading or takes undue
advantage of its audience.
OBSCENITY: "Obscene" material has historically been excluded
from First Amendment protection which has led to the official banning of such
classics as James Joyce's Ulysses and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover,
as well as the criminal prosecution of countless publishers, book distributors,
storekeepers, film distributors and artists.[7]
No comments:
Post a Comment