Should the government regulate the internet

Just a month later, America saw his words become action when the Federal Communications Commission FCC voted to issue new rules regulating the Internet, even though courts and Congress have stood in opposition to its actions.

Should the government regulate the internet

Major Issues There is bipartisan policy for the provision of wide access to the Internet. The Internet can enhance democracy, provide people with wide access to information and promote their membership of groups with similar interests.

It is necessary to understand how the Internet differs from familiar media communication technologies in order to understand the practicability of regulating it. The Internet is not a single thing. It is more like a set of communication standards that let computers talk to each other.

Should the government regulate the internet

It provides a wide range of types of communication and has been described as the 'anything, anytime, anywhere' network. The Commonwealth would have power over the Internet in Australia.

Under s 51 v of the Constitution it has power in respect of 'postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services'. The phrase 'other like services' indicates the power was designed to cover new technological developments. However the Internet will be hard to regulate in practice because of the lack of centralised control the difficulty of controlling the spread of information the availability of encryption the world-wide nature of the Internet the difficulty of determining the originator of information which is anonymous or pseudonymous the unfamiliarity of policy makers with the technology and the fluid nature of the technology There is concern that children could gain access to material via the Internet, which would otherwise be unavailable to them because of their age.

The impression has been created that hard core pornographic material is easy for children to find on the Internet. However, Internet experts report it is hard to access such material. However, material that is unsuitable for minors is more readily available.

Existing case law has failed to acknowledge that Internet Service Providers' ISPs are unable to monitor material effectively. Content liability should be focussed on the originator of the offending material and individuals who access that material with the knowledge that the material is offensive.

ISPs should only be liable where it can be shown that they have full control over the material on their service, or were aware of the offending material and were able, by lawful and practical means, to remove that material from their service, but did not do so within a reasonable time.

A code of practice for ISPs is needed. Legislation currently being considered by the various Australian states and territories provides an incentive for establishing this. It proposes offences for ISPs who knowingly provide access to objectionable material or provide minors with access to material which is restricted under the existing classification regime.

The legislation is expected to establish compliance with a code of practice as a defence to prosecution. Legislation on pornography and copyright should be technology neutral and not effectively more restrictive in the Internet environment than for other communication technologies.

This paper recommends that technological solutions would be most effective in censoring material unsuitable for children. Not only should blocking devices be available as an optional extra but a code of practice or legislation could require that each commercial service offer a channel blocking feature to parents.

Setting up a 'refused access list' would be a possible strategy to block adult access from offending overseas sites containing material that would be refused classification in Australia. Australian ISPs with international access would be required to filter out data packets from addresses on that list.

The Internet raises strong right-to-privacy issues, as users' communications can easily be monitored.Dec 21,  · the simple fact is that some people are so useless and so out of their depth in everyday life that they need the government to wipe their arse and regulate how many wipes they get.

qft. Last edited by un_plugged; at PM. French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the Internet is so pervasive that governments must regulate it or face what he calls "anarchy." At his so-called eG8 summit, he got push-back from the leaders of Amazon, Facebook and Google, and from other heads of state as well.

Should the government regulate social media and other major digital platforms because these new technologies have enormous power to harm American democracy, and are doing so? Here are ten of the reasons why governments should not regulate the internet. To Protect the First Amendment – One of the most cherished rights granted to Americans, the right to free speech and freedom of the press, is protected by the First Amendment of .

Hot Topic: 11 Pros and Cons of Internet Regulation

Jun 11,  · Best Answer: I think the tools in place for parent to self-regulate the internet should be put into play more. the biggest problem I see aren't websites, but rather instant messaging technologies that are much harder to track and the source of alot of initiativeblog.com: Resolved.

Jun 21,  · Saturday, June 21, Nearly half of Americans (49%) believe that the federal government should regulate the Internet the same way it .

Should the government regulate the internet to protect users' privacy | CreateDebate