Computers & Technology >
Internet Security & Safety (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Internet community sites allow complete freedom of speech or should content be regulated for inappropriate material?
Results so far:
| Freedom | 53% | 637 votes | Total: 1209 votes | |
| Regulation | 47% | 572 votes |
Freedom
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesFirst of all we must ask ourselves a question. What material consists of inappropriate use of the freedom of speech on the Internet? Let us ponder on another question. What consists of appropriate use of the freedom of speech on the Internet. Joe may say that posting erotic fiction on the Internet in inappropriate or Jane may tell you that it is perfectly fine so long as the material is tasteful. What is tasteful? Is there an actual line that can or cannot be crossed with Joe and Jane's statements? No. As human beings we do not follow a strict guideline on what is acceptable and what isn't. We are fickle by nature and in some issues such as this one, we do not know where to draw the line.
Simply by this statement it is prudent that we must give each and every person the freedom of speech. Another fact that compounds on this statement is that when the powers that be gave us our equal rights only stated that we are to be granted freedom of speech. That right did not state a limit as to how far this freedom of speech may extend. You could easily argue that the freedom of speech is nothing more than a double standard. If the world had complete freedom of speech then we may a worldwide mutiny on our hands from the people that were seriously offended by what others say. I can truly understand why many would want to use censorship and regulate inappropriate gestures and comments.
Internet community sites should allow complete freedom of speech and there are absolutely ways to come to a compromise in this issue. If the material may be offensive to some people then display a warning before the public goes to see the material. This indicates that if people have seen the warning they know that whatever they see is at their own risk. They've been warned. If they feel that if may become offensive to them then they should not enter to the page. It's as simple as that.
It may also help to adapt a rating system or use the rating system used for television and clearly identify its meaning at the top or entrance of the page. This is an ingenious idea that the 'boobtube' producers use to protect their A-es. If Jane wants to write an erotic fiction then she will hopefully be courteous enough to inform us that it is either R or NC-17 including consensual sex or other colorful descriptions. If Joe broadcasts a video with his pals beating each other up then we hope he will rate a PG-14 or R for violence and racy language. If those codes or ratings were adapted then perhaps we can all move on and be a little less offended by 'inappropriate' material.
Also another technique to avoid Internet quibbles and flaming, encrypt the site with passwords and login names, a famous technique used by pornographic movie and video rippers. This must be working for them or they wouldn't still exist.
Freedom of speech should not be impugned upon but I also feel that there is a limit as to how far voices can go before they either hurt someone or just offend them. The difficult factor is that everyone has a different tolerance level as to what is deemed crossing the line. That is the sole reason as to why you can not just regulate 'inappropriate' material.
Learn more about this author, Nicole Oickle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Regulation
Free For All Here Today
If this is the kind of introduction new visitors to your Internet community site are getting, your site will be a black hole inside a week. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the mediocre will all be quickly swallowed by the loud, inane, and insane among your "guests."
Having some experience with this kind of site, I thought I should throw out a few words of caution. People are always going to be people, no matter where they congregate. In real life, there are community mores that constrain public behavior within reasonable boundaries and make intelligent discourse possible. If those rules governing polite behavior suddenly disappeared, it would take about an hour for someone with a "bumpy" personality to take over the event and make the entire area unhealthy for human habitation.
The same thing happens time and again even in regulated chat spots. People who post online tend to bring their own sense of appropriateness with them, and personalities can easily clash when you throw ten or fifteen people together. What could they attempt to call one another if there were no enforcement of rules guiding politeness? Suppose they were discussing something of great importance to themselves, such as religion or politics. Would they restrain their tendency to question the heritage or intelligence of other correspondents in the absence of rules governing nastiness? The answer is usually "no."
Why Must We "Rule" the Boards?
For a few years, I assisted in administering a few discussion boards on CompuServe (come on, it wasn't THAT long ago). During the course of a day, I would be forced to remind several persons that they should be nice to the other denizens of the boards. They should refrain from calling others names, and they should remember that others might not think much of their ideas, either-so everyone had to bring their best behavior to this quasi-public discussion site.
For the most part, this regulation worked fine. There were times when a particularly strong, "loud" person would essentially take over the discussion, but there were effective ways to stop that, too, and give everyone an opportunity to take part in constructive conversation. Regulation does not mean that a dictatorship is in place, only that the community of online writers gets to see the input of more than a few personalities. Sharing can be really fun, and that was the whole idea of the discussion boards anyway.
Freedom vs. Regulation?
Does regulation damage the possibility of free speech breaking out? In certain cases it can seem so, but there are other causes for this symptom of trouble. Consider that the vocabulary some people have at their command is smaller than others'. Their writing can be crippled by having said things in a way that invites others to become angry unnecessarily. It's not that they've tried to be nasty; they simply are less able to express themselves effectively.
In a large sampling of population, you will find that some of the people who come to discussion boards will want to pretend to be something other than who they are. Either they will take on a very introspective persona, or they will write responses that rub people the wrong way so that they can sit back and laugh at those whose replies they've controlled. This can reach the stage of pathology pretty quickly, and system operators and assistants soon learn to recognize the signs that someone is trying to do this. Regulation is not always a bad thing if you're trying to keep a chat business alive.
Freedom Is Still a Good Thing
Most successful sites allow freedom of speech. That's it; there's nothing better they'd like than for everything to run smoothly and for everyone to stay happy day after day. Since we're all dealing with humans, we need to recognize-as they do-that the addition of some reasonable behavior parameters to the mix will enhance that freedom and allow everyone to enjoy it. Online discussion and networking are growing enormously as our technological capabilities improve. Both freedom and regulation will help to make this pursuit more fun and more effective for everyone involved.
Learn more about this author, Jon Dainty Sr..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Internet Security & Safety (Other)
- Is MySpace a safe Internet venue for teens?
