Internet censorship

 Proposition

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

What is Not Protected by the First Amendment

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]