Rights vs Ethics
This country is built upon the idea of freedom and protection of the rights that we have established through the bill of rights and constitution that our founding fathers drafted. However, how far should we go to protect these rights if they interfere with the beliefs of others? The most important right that some believe we have is the freedom of speech, which also includes expression. Some people wish to express themselves in a pornographic manner or write hateful things on the internet through personal websites or blogs. These people have the right to express themselves in this manner, but how much censorship is needed to protect others’ values without affecting the rights of those who produce this material. If measures are taken to remove these sites then it is an infringement on the rights. Even though there are age restrictions, children are just one click away from accessing these sites. It is not hard to click on the button that says you are 18. There are a wide variety of these sites and so many of them that if one is shut down 20 more will open up under a different name. There really seems like there is no way to control this expression while protecting the rights of expression even if this expression may be unethical. Even though some people may think that it is unethical to put up these website people do have a right to have these sites.
-TBC
I agree with you, Trushar, in that protecting one’s right to freedom of speech and expression is difficult to do when what they are expressing is ethically questionable. I feel like the only solution to this problem is just to find a happy (or at least a satisfactory) balance. For instance, I know with Windows Vista parents can set website controls, although I also know that this does not completely eliminate the issue of children coming into contact with pornography and other child-unfriendly material on the internet. One would think, though, with all our technological advances that there would be some corresponding technological solution. I definitely think that there needs to be certain laws protecting children, specifically in terms of child pornography. If one wishes to express him/herself through child pornography, I definitely think that it is the government’s job to put their foot down and choose ethics over rights. This distinction is not always so clear, though, as you discuss.
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid that sometimes, people must be casualties to other people’s rights. I don’t mean that cannibals should have the right to eat other people, but in the case presented here, I think we must not have laws controlling other people’s expression. After all, when people post pornography on the internet, they should be able to do so with the assumption that parents are going to police their children. While this is not true in many cases, the rights of the pornographer should not be taken away due to negligence on the part of the parent. It isn’t his fault, so why should he be punished? After all, there are warnings when something contains adult content, and so parents should keep their children off these sites and people who are easily offended aren’t being forced to look. Cliched as it is, I think that we can describe regulations such as this as a slippery slope. If pornography is banned for being offensive to some, then that sets a precedent that will allow anything that offends someone to be banned. If this is permitted, then soon any comment, any photo, etc. will be banned. And thus begins the death of free speech.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post. You make a very compelling point. It is difficult to draw the line with regards to the right of freedom of speech and censorship to protect others’ values and emotions. JuicyCampus.com is an incredible example of this. As most probably know, JuicyCampus was a website where anyone with access to the internet could anonymously post “juicy” comments about anything or anyone at their college. While it was initially intended to discuss innocent issues like college parties and fraternity reputations, it eventually became a dumping ground for hateful personal attacks and racist slander. I myself hated JuicyCampus and almost never chose to visit it, but sadly I did agree that it had the right to exist. Under our constitution, citizens have the right to free speech. And while it can be damaging or hurtful to some, starting strong censorship laws could potentially create a snowball effect denying average citizens their national right to free speech. Unfortunately censorship is a slippery slope, and awful sites like JuicyCampus are the price we must pay to ensure our basic right to free speech.
ReplyDelete