2008 Woodie Awards
US For UNrestricted Internet...
There is a necessity to keep control of the net in the hands of the United States.
Brett Heiney
Issue date: 11/4/05 Section: Opinions
A foul game is afoot in the international community…Recently there has been a move in the international community away from supporting the US control of the core addressing system of the internet towards a more controlled internet. Whoever controls the central addressing system could effectively censor the content of the internet. There are two sides to this issue that are emerging as the two polarized arguments. If two camps existed in this debate there would be the US camp and the Chinese camp.
The US, or more correctly a nonprofit organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, controls the core addressing system of the internet, and keeps it competitive. It is not a perfect system, but then again what is. The US stance is that to protect freedom of expression and information on the internet, ICANN should indefinitely maintain its control. We have made no laws abridging the first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression on the internet, and mean to keep it that way. Of course we limit access to certain material on the internet and add disclaimers, but that is simply for the moral wellbeing of internet users.
I believe in the importance of our First Amendment that protects the freedom of speech and of expression. But I also believe that it is morally reprehensible to allow people of all ages to access controversial topics such as pornography or hate groups. These people have a right to place their content on the public forum that is the internet, but we as a society have a responsiblity to teach our children when it is acceptable to view such websites.
China on the other hand is well known for its strict control of internet content within its borders. Of course it would try to get as many nations on its side to wrest control of the internet away from the US to an international organization like the United Nations so that it can exert influence on internet content outside of its borders and thus increase its relative power. Europe has until recently been in the US camp advocating US control and internet freedom. Europe now is moving towards the China camp for international control of the internet that seems that it would be less friendly to freedom of expression.
The US, or more correctly a nonprofit organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, controls the core addressing system of the internet, and keeps it competitive. It is not a perfect system, but then again what is. The US stance is that to protect freedom of expression and information on the internet, ICANN should indefinitely maintain its control. We have made no laws abridging the first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression on the internet, and mean to keep it that way. Of course we limit access to certain material on the internet and add disclaimers, but that is simply for the moral wellbeing of internet users.
I believe in the importance of our First Amendment that protects the freedom of speech and of expression. But I also believe that it is morally reprehensible to allow people of all ages to access controversial topics such as pornography or hate groups. These people have a right to place their content on the public forum that is the internet, but we as a society have a responsiblity to teach our children when it is acceptable to view such websites.
China on the other hand is well known for its strict control of internet content within its borders. Of course it would try to get as many nations on its side to wrest control of the internet away from the US to an international organization like the United Nations so that it can exert influence on internet content outside of its borders and thus increase its relative power. Europe has until recently been in the US camp advocating US control and internet freedom. Europe now is moving towards the China camp for international control of the internet that seems that it would be less friendly to freedom of expression.