Pros of Freedom of Expression One major plus of freedom of expression is that it can send up a beacon of hope and optimism for people in oppressive regimes and situations. There are many countries that regulate free speech and internet activity (Greengard, 2010)
History has shown since then that this just inflamed the populace even more and the decision to staunch online communication was eventually undone. Another effect that online activity restriction can have is the thought that such actions are inherently incompatible with the precepts of democracy and freedom of speech in general (Morozov, 2011)
In addition, susceptible parties such as children are shielded from this material using filtering software both at the computer and internet levels. This filtering of the internet to ostensibly protect the vulnerable is generally supported although there are some detractors (Nantai & Cockerline, 2010)
However, the country's populaces as well as observers outside of the country have vehemently condemned the behavior (Fish, 2009). A similar set of circumstances have come to be in Turkey (Ozkan & Arikan, 2009)
The capabilities, depth and breadth of what the internet has to offer have increased exponentially over the ensuing two decades. Such expansion has greatly eased the spread of information (Palfrey, 2010)
Conclusion As has been made clear over the course of this report, the research bears out that the intentions behind censorship range from good intentions to the oppressing of populations and the verdict about such censorship tends to be condemnatory of the general behavior of censorship in all of its forms and functions. Research shows that while some censorship is probably required, it needs to be done in a balanced way and less is generally more (Peace, 2003)
Some ask the question whether China even has the right to do this (Smith, 2010). Another major plus of free expression on the internet is that the web allows people to mobilize and organize for or against topics that unite them (Penny, 2011)
Some ask the question whether China even has the right to do this (Smith, 2010). Another major plus of free expression on the internet is that the web allows people to mobilize and organize for or against topics that unite them (Penny, 2011)
This regulation is the subject of much banter, much of it negative, including derision aimed at companies in the Western world such as Google that actively work with the country of China despite its behavior (Greengard, 2012). Google results from Chinese computers are often redacted or users are met with a "page cannot be displayed" prompt (Roberts, 2010)
Cons of Freedom of Expression A major con of freedom of expression is that once a statement is made or a picture is posted on the Internet, it is extremely difficult to retract the information or image once it is out there. Such was proven by the legal case of an Argentinian woman who demanded that Yahoo and Google remove racy pictures of her from their search engine results (Rosen, 2012)
Google results from Chinese computers are often redacted or users are met with a "page cannot be displayed" prompt (Roberts, 2010). Some ask the question whether China even has the right to do this (Smith, 2010)
A similar set of circumstances have come to be in Turkey (Ozkan & Arikan, 2009). Countries that installed such measures have been usurped by people that continue their online activities under pseudonyms (Talbot, 2009)
There are many countries that regulate free speech and internet activity (Greengard, 2010). Although these regimes, which include China, are very diligent in regulating what they see as threatening, many of the citizens network and speak their mind irrespective of the potential consequences (Thompson, 2010)
Germany occupies a rare position as a developed state with firsthand knowledge of the power words have to fuel genocide. Its speech laws can be seen, at least in part, as reactions to that power" (Allen and Norris, p
However, there is nothing that prohibits private actors from restraining speech. "As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activities of others on the property" (Linder)
]; it also was their readers, particularly students who might have limited exposure to newspapers or magazines at home. By showing them how an investigative story or a lively opinion section can add to their understanding of the school they attend, an ambitious, uncensored student newspaper teaches principles that are essential to a free society: the importance of skepticism, criticism and empiricism; the necessity of checks on authority; the centrality of open debate to democratic culture" (Just, 2008) The third right being violated by abusive censorship is that of a proper education and professional formation of the future journalist
According to professional opinion, "extensive viewing of television violence by children causes greater aggressiveness, a higher likelihood of imitation (particularly when such violence goes unpunished), and that the effects of viewed violence can be immediate as well as delayed by years (American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2007). If we accept that this research is accurate, that the hundreds of studies conducted that looked into and found a connection between viewed or simulated violence and the commission of acts of violence later then we also need to question the very validity of maintaining such exposure (Duncan, 2006
However, over the course of time, television has become more liberal rather than less. So, in response, the television industry, governmental, and citizen bodies banded together again in the mid-1980's to begin the process of looking into alternative ways to actually keep children from watching violent acts in a society that maintains that freedom of expression is a critical part of our social order (Hornaday N01)
This is why the chip has not been very successful: parental effort must be exerted and that, put starkly, is just too much to ask of many people. The v-chip only succeeds in households that use it (Puzzanghera, 2007)
If the censorship is purely personal, then only a strength of conviction exists - such as making the personal choice to not watch police procedurals. Censorship where the viewer is not a willing participant, however, means that it is up to interested and other third parties to create a system by which the censorship is both appropriate and effective without causing harm to society (Knox, 2000)