Censorship of the Internet: The Job of Parents, Not Government

Abstract

This paper presents arguments against censorship of the Internet. The Internet has become one of the most valuable technological tools in our society. For the first time in history, people can freely express their opinions. In fact, it has been suggested "that on-line systems give people far more genuinely free speech and free press than [has] ever [occurred] in human history" (Com-Revere 71). The claim throughout this paper is that censorship of the Internet by the United States government for the purpose of preventing children from viewing "offensive material" is misguided. The main reason for this censorship stems from American's fears that children can view online inappropriate material like pornography. This paper will contend that the government should not censor the Internet for the sake of children because such suppression of ideas goes against the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, only a small percentage of online communication involves offensive material. Further, the involvement of parents, filtering software, and digital signatures that inform viewers of what the site contains represent more viable alternatives for protecting the interest of children than censorship. Using these alternative measures, parents can oversee the Internet usage of their children, and adults can continue to enjoy Internet free from governmental intrusion. Finally, it may be both politically and technologically impossible to censor the Internet. Therefore, government should not encourage Internet censorship.