Society, especially the younger generation, has become dependent on the Internet to express themselves, communicate and research. What if the freedom to express oneself on the Internet was taken away? This may take the form of internet censorship. Censorship is the removal of offensive words, images, or ideas, where the government can regulate and control what is published and viewed (Head, 2018). Although, according to the First Amendment of the Constitution, American citizens enjoy freedom of speech. Censorship raises the question of freedom of expression. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay The Internet is a form of communication between cities and the world that has been revolutionized over time. The Internet first appeared in the 1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that it became publicly available in the United States. In 2015, approximately 3.2 billion people, almost half of the world's population, had access to the Internet. . North Korea, China and eight other countries massively practice internet censorship. Less than 5% of North Koreans have access to the Internet, and those who can access it are still monitored (Kilpatrick, 2018). In many countries, censorship most often targets political ideas or criticism of the government. The Chinese government has the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks access to certain websites. They monitor other sites by forcing the public to provide their national identification number in order to access the Internet in cafes. People who break the rules are severely punished. Other democratic countries also practice censorship, including Canada, Great Britain and Germany. In Canada, freedom of expression is under threat as books are removed from Canadian libraries and schools. Open Media organized a massive “Don’t Censor” campaign to combat the proposed website blocking. In Google v. Equustek, it was ruled that Google must remove links worldwide to entire websites containing pages selling products that allegedly infringe trade secret rights. The move will likely encourage other countries to try to enforce their own laws. Britain has a long history of censoring “unacceptable” content in film and television. Currently, surveillance and police measures have been strengthened. States implement extensive monitoring of online communication, filtering and tracking practices. In Germany, they passed a law called NetzDG, which imposes huge fines on social networks if they don't remove illegal content, including hate speech. The opposition claims that this is a slap in the face of all democratic principles. Similar self-censorship practices are implemented by several American companies, including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and MySpace. There has been an increase in government control over the Internet. The scale of censorship would only increase if the censorship law is approved. In the United States, Internet censorship in the form of websites, media, commentary, information, and education should not be allowed. Censorship violates everyone's rights. This will have many negative impacts on the lives of citizens as it would constitute a violation of our personal rights and freedoms. This will also impact education and the economy. The power to censor material can be abused as subjective opinions surface. Educational information and communication can be realizedthanks to the Internet. Everyone has access to a huge amount of information. People can connect with others around the world: the freedom to post on the Internet and have information available at any time. An individual can share his thoughts, views and opinions with others. Censorship will only suppress an individual's opinion in the media, from news to independent viewpoints. Censorship undermines our freedom to express our ideas and beliefs as we see fit. Everyone has the right to information on the Internet, for educational purposes or for their own knowledge on a subject. Censorship is a way of restricting and controlling the information published. For example, if the information was censored as well as the comments regarding the information, it would go back to the fact that the information is supposed to be factual and truthful, supported by evidence. If it were to be censored, it would remove a certain aspect or issue from the public. Comments and discussions from the journal provide useful perspectives on other opinions. In 2007, Verizon attempted to block the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America from using its text messaging services to speak to its supporters (Liptak, 2007). Verizon said it was to enforce a policy that does not allow its customers to use its service to communicate "controversial" or "unsavory" messages. Verizon took away the right to receive text messages, someone's right to free speech to discuss topics. Verizon should not be allowed to control and censor conversations. Censorship can affect small businesses and education. This will have a huge impact on a child's education. Education is about preparing for life, but if the learning process is affected by censorship, what about developing awareness of the world at school? This will lead to a narrow worldview, with gaps in the cultural and international education of children. Censorship not only affects children but also teachers whose resources are limited by censorship. This restricts a teacher's ability to explore all possible avenues to motivate and teach students by narrowing down the ideas that can be discussed in class. Censorship will restrict a child's ability to grow and learn at the same time, ultimately leading to bigotry. Businesses will also be affected because their message or product cannot be promoted and sold online. Some companies' products will not be able to be viewed or accessible to consumers, especially internationally (Poland, nd). They are at a disadvantage compared to other competitors in the sector who would be allowed to sell online. Censorship will only benefit those in power and government because they will be the ones to decide what is good or bad for society to see online. Allowing the government to exercise this power will deprive us of our own rights. For example, the Combating Online Counterfeiting and Counterfeiting Act, a recent bill that allows the attorney general to take down websites suspected of engaging in counterfeiting activity. This has raised some concerns about the Justice Department's increased power over website content. They will decide whether the content or comment constitutes hateful or offensive speech. Actual information can be controlled based on the morals and values ​​of the supervisor. This is when bias and personal feelings get in the way of the true purpose of censorship. The material that will be removed would be based on subjective judgments about the content of the speech. So,blindfolding the public to the consciousness of the world around them. Video surfaces on Breitbart News of Google's weekly TGIF meetings where employees and executives debate topics. In the video, Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, said that "as an immigrant...I find the election deeply offensive." People are concerned about Google's biased opinion of the president and how this could affect the web search engine (Swisher, 2018). With censorship, ideas are less likely to be shared. When people fear criticism or retaliation for sharing their thoughts, they are less likely to express them. Some new ideas are very controversial and challenge the system, but they should not be censored. There should be room for opposing viewpoints on the Internet. Our government and governments around the world will be much more responsive to the opinions of their citizens if they listen to them. And if citizens don't like what the government is doing, they have every right to say so. The US Senate has just voted 97 to 2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, HR 1865), a bill that silences online speech by requiring internet platforms to censor their users (Harmon, 2018). Despite the good intentions, it was bad law. The bill also expands existing federal criminal law to target online platforms where content related to sex trafficking appears. The bill is worded so broadly that it could even be used against platform owners who are unaware that their sites are being used for trafficking. Online platforms will have no choice but to become much more restrictive in the types of discussions they allow, thereby censoring innocent people. The Internet will become a less inclusive place. Ultimately, if censorship were enabled, it could lead to abuses of this power that affect us without our knowledge. The consequences of censorship will be dramatic. This situation can be compared to George Orwell's 1984 book which spoke of a totalitarian society where everything is censored and monitored. The big boss (the government) always monitors the public. The audience continues to live their lives without meaning or truth from the outside world. The public doesn't even know which country they are waging a war against. With internet censorship, there is a lack of truth and the power to conceal the truth would be given to a select few within the US government. Hiding the truth from citizens has consequences that should not be overlooked. It is better to be aware of problems and be able to defend against them than to banish them to an unknown realm where they can grow unchecked. Censorship advocates target material containing sexuality. The reason being the safety of what the child can find online. They argue that the internet is not safe for a child without censorship and that online games can lead to addiction (Kilpatrick, 2018). It should be the responsibility of parents to ensure that their child does not spend too much time on the Internet, thereby leading to addiction. There is no need to resort to censorship simply because of what a child may find online about hatred of certain religions or pornography. Guardians must have control and knowledge of what the child has access to. There are other measures taken outside the home, such as the school blocking students' access to certain websites. There is also the Protection of Children Act 2000.