Internet Censorship Essay - We Need Censorship to Protect Children Online :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

We Need Censorship to Protect Children Online   One ancestor Cited      This paper will elaborate the reasons why littles deserve legislative protection while using the internet, and how to implement this protection.   Most families agree that the custody, care, and raise of the child resides first with the parent. On the other hand, the widespread availability of the lucre presents opportunities for minors to access materials through the solid ground wide-eyed Web in a manner that can frustrate enate supervision or control, for example, at the local public library(Morales). The protection of the physical and psychological well- universe of minors by shielding them from materials that are harmful to them is a compel interest to most parents.   To date, while the industry has developed innovative ship canal to help parents and educators restrict material that is harmful to minors through parental control protections and self-regulation, such e fforts have not provided a national response to the problem of minors accessing harmful material on the World extensive Web. Notwithstanding the existence of protections that limit the distribution over the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, parents, educators, and industry must continue efforts to interpret ways to protect children from being exposed to harmful material represent on the Internet.   Meanwhile, a banning on the distribution of material harmful to minors, combined with legitimate defenses, is currently the most effective and least confining means by which to satisfy the compelling interest of parents.   Such prohibition should include the following conduct Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fi ned and possibly imprisoned. intended repetition of this violation should accrue greater penalties.   This prohibition should not do to carriers and other internet service providers, including   (1) a telecommunications carrier sedulous in the provision of a telecommunications service (2) a person engaged in the business of providing an Internet access service (3) a person engaged in the business of providing an Internet information location tool or (4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combine thereof) of a communication made by another person, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication.