In five pages the ongoing debate as to whether or not the government should be permitted to censor the content of the Internet is examined from both sides. Three sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: CC6_KSinterCensor.doc
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
averted government-led censorship of Internet content (Rash, 1997). Some Internet service providers sell themselves as being worry-free for parents because they have specific sites blocked, but subscribing to such
a service is far different than allowing government to set acceptable standards. Argument can be made in favor of not allowing access to
sites that reflect the worst of life, but the argument breaks down with only the most superficial scrutiny. The question of "who decides?" is one that prevents government censorship
from being a workable arrangement. Opponents cite the First Amendment, but the issue extends beyond even that. Others Experience
Other governments have sought to censor the Internet in terms of the kinds of sites their citizens can access. That China would seek to
maintain tight control over its citizens is not surprising, and it is also not surprising that the government there would block access to many types of sites. In China,
it is not only those sites of questionable - or no - moral value to which citizens are not allowed access. That nation continues to block sites opposing Chinas
government or worldview in any way. One instance of government censorship of the Internet was greatly more surprising. Singapore has been the
miracle of Southeast Asia, having risen from economic equality with Nepal in 1960 to being listed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as no longer being a
developing nation. Singapore now has a fully mature economy, and was even slated to overtake Great Britain in per capita GDP shortly before the Asian currency crisis prevented it.