Censorship has for a long time been a highly contested legislative issue. When it comes to sites that incite hatred, are terrorist instructionals, or contain material like child pornography, society can agree that they're bad. But should we go as far as to remove the availability of these websites, and risk a slippery-slope into further censorship?
Pros:
- Can remove sites that incite hatred against specific racial groups, etc and reduce their influence
- Can remove the influence and harm of sites which assist in suicide, child pornography, etc.
- We already establish boundaries on what constitutes 'free speech' - indeed, turn to J.S Mills Harm principle, and we agree that people can exert their right to free speech only so far as that they don't impede on other people's rights.
- We already censor other forms of media, such as newspapers, books and movies. Why not the internet?
Con's:
- Most child pornography rings operate on closed servers, unable to be censored, and unavailable to the public
- The internet is a free global and public space, and the government has no authority and no right to control the information presented on it.
- We would see huge backlash from major corporations and individuals (see SOPA/PIPA rallies)
- It may lead to a slipperly slope, where the government can decide other 'offensive' material, which may not be offensive (e.g sites which are against their political views) should be taken down.
It is proposed that the government should censor the internet