Sunday, May 3, 2015

U.S. Government Blockage of Publications Needs to be Limited

Response to question 1 on page 340

  • The US government infringes on people's First Amendment right to free speech when it blocks the publication of material.
  • With increase in social media and information via Internet, the government is beginning to seek greater control of what is distributed.
  • If the published material provides a great threat to national security, the government should do thorough investigation to see if blockage is truly necessary.

In the past decade, more and more people are arguing that the government is placing too many restrictions on what one can and cannot post. With the rise of the internet and other forms of mass communication, the amount of information being transmitted has increased exponentially. There have been many cases where the government has asked internet companies to remove information it has posted, as well as governments outside the US controlling what their citizens post on social media. This has fueled a controversial debate on the government's power to exercise prior restraint, as well as block publication or broadcast of material it feels might hurt security interests. Excessive use of prior restraint is against an individual's right to free speech.

The Government Controlling Speech Leads to Unnecessary Censorship 

It is each citizens right to free speech as stated in the First Amendment. While it is very important that this law be upheld, there should be a few exceptions such as prohibiting publication of child pornography. Many argue that publications of hate speech should be restricted, such as Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," which some claimed is full of anti-Muslim sentiments. But in an interview with PBS, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union argues that, "when the government gets to decide which speech is permissible, its exercise of that authority is almost always driven by political considerations, not principled decisions." If the government was given more control over what information the public was allowed to see, they would abuse that power and restrict anything they did not want to be released, without a legitimate reason. An article on CNN.com, states that in the last half of 2011, the US government asked Google to remove 6,192 pieces of content from its search results, blog posts, or online videos, which was a 718% increase compared with what the government asked Google to remove in the first half of 2011. In an incident cited in the same report, the US government asked Google to remove a blog that "allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal capacity." Google did not oblige. Incidents such as these provide evidence for the government's increasing attempt to control the flow of information via Internet. Individuals are allowed to speak their mind and any restriction of that is against the law.


Do National Security Interests Overrule an Individual's Right to Privacy?

By now, everyone is aware of the case of Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency subcontractor leaked top secret information regarding NSA surveillance activities in 2013. Many regard him as a traitor, but Snowden upholds his belief that what he did was justified in the fact that the NSA was spying on American citizens via phone calls and internet and he believed that was wrong and disturbing. He claimed, "I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building." The government should not have invaded citizen's privacy in the first place. Snowden was using their own tactics on themselves. The government should be conducted in an open and honest manor, not abusing the trust of its citizens when trying to gain access to information. 

Postings on social media should especially not be moderated. Social media is a way for people to access and spread information in an open forum. Opinions are allowed to be said, information is allowed to be given out. The government has no business controlling this. Also, social media is a worldwide venue. Every country has different laws governing what can and cannot be said online. No country has the right to impose its laws on someone outside their country even if they are posting information or opinions about their country. In China, for example, Google is forced to remove results of anything the government dislikes. Restrictions such as these can not be used in the United States because it would clearly disregard the right to free speech.

Overall, an individual's right to free speech overrules even national security interests. Without the right to post, distribute, or broadcast what one wants to be seen, the government ends up having total control over the population and this is not what democracy is about. Prior restraint should be used in rare cases, where the government is sure the information pending publication is going to cause extremely terrible effects. Simply defacing one's government is not a reason to block the publication.

1 comment:

  1. When I first read your headline I was kind of confused about what the post was about. It could be more explanatory. I also think that there should be a picture or graphic near the beginning of the post. Although, I do like the three bullet points that are used. I think the subheads should be bigger text, right now they blend in too much with the rest of the post and they should stick out more so scanners can use them. The first subhead is explanatory but the second is asking a question which makes it so you have to continue reading. I like the links you used and overall I learned from the posting but a scanner might have a difficult time getting through it. Good text overall, just add more pictures, better heading (more explanatory), and subheadings (make bigger/ different or bold text).

    ReplyDelete