One of the most controversial ethical arguments today is whether
the United States of America’s government should be allowed to remove
information from the internet if it could be used by terrorists. This is known as a form of internet
censorship and could be deemed unconstitutional or vital to national security
depending on the viewpoint. Both the
preservation of information and the safety of American citizens is important,
but should the knowledge be sacrificed to ensure American lives. Or should this information be red flagged but
still made available. Is this a
violation of personnel freedom, should all types of information be accessible
to anyone?
The first viewpoint is that in order to save innocent lives,
every possible measure should be taken even if it means the exclusion of
certain types of information. Not all
information is necessary for all citizens to live their lives. Especially knowledge that could be used for
dangerous purposes. These types of
information need to be removed from public access and should not be protected
by the Freedom of Information Act. This
is definitely a reasonable course of action and should be made legal, if not
already, so that no confusion can occur in the future when questions of this
nature are raised.
The other viewpoint of this ethical issue is the preservation
of information is a right that American citizens should have. No information should be kept from the public
and every citizen should be able to access any type of information they want whenever
they want too. The accumulation of
knowledge lessen ignorance and lead to the enlightenment of individuals. This creates more intelligent citizens within
society and eliminates certain problems that are create by individuals who lack
an educational background. Other solutions
to protect American citizens from the knowledge that terrorists could use to
endanger lives exist. Solutions such as
red flagging any information from any website that may be used for harmful
reasons. This would protect Americans
from unwanted censorship and inform the proper authorities of possible
individuals who may be terrorist.
Both points of view are valid but I believe that no
information should be censored. I admit
that there is no need for anyone to know how to make a bomb from household
items. That being said, once the government
is allowed to filter certain types of information, what is to stop them from
excluded information that is not harmful but may go against whatever the personal
bias of the individual in charge may have. This is a complicated debate because it gives
the government too much power in an area that can be controlled without the
loss of any knowledge that have been accumulated. Monitoring is a much more logical solution
than censorship. I just don’t like the
idea of people changing or deleting facts without any supervision.
We as citizen of the United States have rights and freedoms
that should be taken away. The unwanted
removal of information from websites by the government feels a little too close
to the violation of freedom of speech, our first amendment. Once the government can dictate what we can
know, they can influence how we think, taking away our free will and making us
slaves to what information is available instead of being students of all
knowledge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLibrarian was my major and reading this artical I found very good and concerning. The standard of are catalog should be censor for the violent articles and restricted.
DeleteHello Don, I believe libraries can hold a different standard because a lot of their patrons are children. They can sensor what books, etc. they provide. The internet is a whole different story. The internet can not differentiate who is looking up what. I like the idea of "red flags" which can draw attention to what short of bomb or poison, etc. is being researched so even if they cannot control the information, they could prepare a plan to watch and control the resulting consequences of the said product. Very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteDonwray,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it would be difficult as well as expensive for United States government to regulate and may be remove all the information from internet that could be misused by people. My argument on it is that, US can only censor the flow of information on internet of United States, so people looking on topic such as making bombs or poison can look on topics from many different countries of the world.
This is a tricky subject because it can go horribly wrong. The internet is full of useful information. It would also be impossible for the government to ban or monitor the parts of the internet that contains such information. If someone wants the information bad enough they will find a way.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post Donald. It]s a conundrum because I believe in a free internet and government transparency. At the same there is information that needs to be classified.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this has become a much more talked about subject in the last decade with the increased use of computers and smartphones. While I agree that some information could be misused by criminals (in this case terrorists), complete censorship does not seem reasonable. I like your idea of red flags if there are certain articles being researched. It's not necessarily taking rights away from anyone, but it does keep law enforcement alerted.
ReplyDelete