A Parents Right to Filter?

In discussing filter Lessig makes it seem as though it is a parents right to filter what they let their children watch or hear or in general encounter. In the case of internet or TV parents often choose to filter things of adult content. Namely, this means things that involve violence or sex. There is no real discussion on what parents can choose to filter because children are generally allowed to be raised by their parents in any way their parents deem is correct. This allows parents to brain wash their kids. Often the kids who come from these households are called ‘sheltered’ or ignorant and it is left at that. A parent’s choice of educating a child can do harm to him or her. Some religious beliefs might prohibit modern medicine, a child who learns this might die of an illness because his complete understanding of medicine is that it is evil and its use would send him to hell. Girls brought up in polygamous societies view their marriages at a young age to older men as normal and thereby are deprived of alternative lives. Parents who prevent their kids from learning about evolution keep them from sciences’ best understanding of the origin of the homo sapien. Parents can indoctrinate their children into an endless list of false beliefs that would seriously alter their lives and possibly prevent them from living a normal life. To what extent should parents be allowed to dictate their children’s understanding of the world? While freedom of speech might be harmful in the circulations of rumors as truth, the filtering of speech can have the same effect.

Free Speech, Freedom from Government Retaliation

Lessig says in code that the right to free speech protects citizens from retaliation by the government for speaking one’s mind. It is imaginable that this amendment would rightly protect those who sought reform in an inefficient (or perhaps even corrupt) government. A government afraid of change could abuse its sovereign power by imprisoning those who spoke out against it. This practice is common amongst authoritarian forms of governments. Free speech is not compatible with dictatorships for example and is therefore not permissible in countries under those conditions. Dictators like Hitler and Pol Pot would throw anyone who were against them in jail or execute them because if they were to gain broad support they could possibly pose a problem. The way these people would gain support would be by communicating their ideas, this is what speech is. In the case of the United States, our society vehemently protects the right to free speech because the opposition to it is reminiscent of these authoritarian regimes. Yet, free speech thrives in the US and our government is not endangered by it, but could some speech be harmful to our government and our society as a whole? Look at conspiracy theories and the people that believe them. These ideas develop a following of people that basically become skeptical of the government. This is allowed by freedom of speech. Would it be possible for the perfect conspiracy theory to be developed that could convince enough people to overthrow the government. What limits need to be placed on free speech that would prevent the perfect liar from creating a following?

Internet Free Speech

We have been discussing how computers and the internet have shown the true meaning of free speech. The thing that was impressive to me was the YouTube clip that had the most comments. I was shocked to hear that something that actually had some meaning and relevance to the world was the most discussed, rather than any accident or "kittens in nun outfits." The structure of the video, the text responses and the video responses show that YouTube has done some good in society: it has facilitated free speech and the right for debate. Now, tons of people with conflicting viewpoints can meet in one forum to enlighten each other and gain insight to better themselves. Even ten years ago, worldwide "instant" debate was not possible; at least not amongst "common" human beings. World leaders, celebrities, athletes, and anyone greater than just a civilian of the world could duke it out intellectually via the television. The rest of us could only watch and discuss the issues among an audience of our peers. Although taken for granted, the fact that we can instantly contact people is a huge innovation and has developed the full aspect of free speech, because now we can openly say what we want while hearing all oppositions clearly and without conflict. However, the internet hinders free speech as well because of the fact that it is easy to filter material. Filtering causes ones views to not fully develop, as they cannot consider all other alternatives, but the fact that any and every opinion possible is just a click away furthers our culture and strengthens the real meaning of free speech.

Black Team- remember we are meeting after class on thursday. Please have your top five choices picked out.

Right TO Speak

The right to free speech in United State is the right to be free from the punishment from the government in retaliation for at least some (probably most) speech. (Code, pg 233). In United State, the first amendment will protect the free speech. First amendment is expressly prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peacely assembles, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There are many way nowadays that encouraged the free speech, for example the Net. The Internet let people to talk about whatever they want. Blog is one of the medium that allowed people to talk about their idea or opinion or thought that they have on particular topic. But, there is also type of speech that should have the restriction, for example about porn and spam. There is restriction about who can access through this kind of free speech. In the real space the block to that kind of free speech not work much. So, it depends on how people look the free speech. The government has software that will filter the information that they do not want public to read. Besides that, there are also private filter. For example the father does not want his son/daughter to read about certain religion. So, he will set up firewall which will filter all the sites that related to that religion. But on the other hand, this practice will get in the way to protecting free speech.

Is filtering harmful?

The subject of filtering and free speech is currently being addressed in class. As a citizen of the United States, when I hear the term "free speech," I associate it with being able to say what I want (minus hate speech) without fear of imprisonment. Free speech is a value that is held high in the United States and it should be kept that way. Filtering, however, is more controversial. Is it really bad to not be exposed to the "ugliness" of life? Lessing believes that there "is value in confronting the unfiltered." Although facing some of the darker aspects of life is necessary at some points, having sad things being placed in front of us constantly is harmful as well. People thrive on happiness. As studies have shown, happy people are more efficient, better to be around, and are a plus to society. Negative or unhappy people are a drain on society. If homelessness, poverty, and horrible crimes are constantly being shown to people; the end result will be a nation full of sad, upset souls. The nation as a whole will be unhappy and unproductive and a lower economy will result. Information should be filtered on the internet. A internet surer shoul dnot have to face problems when looking around. People are still going to live and exist in the real world and they will still have to see and deal with problems there. There should be no problem in making the internet an oasis, because it is impossible for people to live in the internet and never face real problems in the real world (if they are actual people who live and work and do not rely on the government for money).

black team- please email me at smileydi@comcast.net with your email so I can let you access the team website. Thanks. DM