Free Internet Speech

Name:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

Free Internet Speech

Freedom in the context of internet speech is increasingly a debated topic where by aspects such as intellectual rights, sexual censorship and other means of control warrant different perspectives. Numerous instances of internet service providers or network controllers delaying or blocking some variations of internet speech they view as having undesirable economic or rating consequences. Free internet speech should be allowed and protected given network operators given preference to content providers considered economically more viable. Consequently, controlling internet speech limits consumer choice, a situation globalization seeks to eradicate.

I perceive controlled internet speech as an associated aspect of totalitarianism where certain content is encouraged to spread at the expense of another. For instance, Com Cast had blocked and deliberately delayed access to bit torrent given the peer to peer video sharing held the risk of affecting its video services. Additionally, it had blocked access to the KJV bible. This example is indicative of how certain expressions associated with religion or competition can be suppressed by big network operators. The suppression/controls has dire consequences on consumer choice and freedom of expression given a company like Comcast is place second in America’s ISP’s.

One of the aspects that made internet enjoyable and its usage experience exponential growth was the lack of discrimination where regardless of the content accessed there were no preferential treatment of the users. However, technological advancements have made it possible of financially affluent organizations to monitor data packets. In addition, the monitoring enables organizations to allocated data packets to slow or fast traffic lanes depending on suitability to the organization’s internal business models. For instance, the aforementioned blockage of the KJV bible would constitute to a breach of the First Amendment rights. Never the less, this is negated since the argument is that of a private company controlling accessible technologies not certain forms of expression. Ultimately, restricting internet speech cumulates to breaching fundamental rights of an individual including expression and religion.

Another reason why I object controls on internet speech is the vague boundaries corporations and Telcoms have in controlling content. For instance, AT&T had a case where in the course of streaming a live performance by a certain band they muted a section where the bandleader was talking about former president Bush war policies. This was justified as controlling the streaming or a Private’s company technology. In reference to this case, a problem of setting boundaries within which the restrictions can be enforced emerges. Corporations can use the power to restrict on other areas through legal technicalities consequently undermining development of democracy and freedom of expression.

My opposition of restrictions is only directed towards discriminative controls. However, on issues of content requiring individual autonomy I believe it is important to set up controls. The reference made here is graphic contents such as sexual content should be made available to while considering certain demographic aspects such as age. Censorship to the public is allowed if exposure is involuntary however in cases where the individual has the prerogative of content desired it should not apply.