3.1 Briefly explain the differences between common carriers, broadcasters, and publishers with respect to freedom of speech and control of content.
According to Baase (2008), common carriers are only a medium of communication to the masses. Carriers disregard socioeconomic status and are made to provide their service to everyone. The laws of the United States prohibit carriers from controlling the content of the material that passes through their systems and take no responsibility for any illegal content that passes through their system. Examples of common carriers include postage mail and telephone services (pg. 146). In broadcasting mediums such as television or radio, the government has more control over the content they provide to the public. The government controls and regulates the content of material to the public. This poses more restricted First Amendment freedoms than for common carriers because the government can threaten to shut down a station or take away a broadcasting license if they don’t agree with the material (pg. 145-146). Publishers of print media such as newspapers or books have the strongest protected First Amendment freedoms. The only censorship, besides after the content being published, goes through the publisher of the material not the government (pg. 145).
3.2 Describe two methods parents can use to restrict access by their children to inappropriate material on the web.
One method a parent can use to restrict access by their children to inappropriate material on the web is to use software filters to restrict specific categories of websites such as sex or violence. A parent could create their own list of banned websites, or the opposite, a list of websites the child can visit. With this software, a parent can also see a log of the websites a child had previously visited (pg. 155). A second method is for a parent to personally set up an email account for their child and decide the list of addresses that email can accept (pg. 160). A general protection method for parents to use is to put their computer in their living/family room of their house so they can monitor their children’s use of the internet.
3.8 One of the arguments used to justify increased government control of television content is that television is “invasive.” It comes into the home and is more difficult to keep from children. Do you think this argument is strong enough to outweigh the First Amendment? Give reasons. Is this argument more valid for the Internet than for television, or less valid for the Internet than for television? Give reasons.
I do believe the argument is strong enough to outweigh the First Amendment rights. With television being a popular form of communication of education, violence, morals, and shaping the thoughts of children all over the United States, I feel that someone has to send the right message to those children who are the future of our country. As long as the government has a checks and balances system to make sure all viewpoints of appropriate material is shown, it should be able to infringe on the broadcasting industries First Amendment rights. I believe this argument is more valid for the Internet than television because for a person to be on television they have to have some sense of what is appropriate for people to see and are most likely censored by their broadcasting station, as well as the government. For a person to put inappropriate material on the Internet they don’t need to have their ideas or material examined by a higher up, the material goes straight to the Internet and can be done by any person at any time. This is why the government needs to step in and control the content of material visible to children, whether or not in may outweigh a person’s First Amendment rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment