ONeill 1

Kaitlyn ONeill
Adam Padgett
English 102 (T/TH)
3 April 2016
Should the Federal Government be allowed to Regulate Information on the Internet?
I would try and add a more interesting introductory sentence to capture the audience- The
Internet has come a long way throughout the years. It has gotten to the point now where people
use the Internet to do research and gain knowledge on different subjects. When using the
Internet, one must be cautious as to what one is reading because there is the possibility that the
information may be wrong. The reason for this is because anyone can post information on the
Internet, which is why it is important to know which websites are credible or not. Since people
can just post things on the Internet, there is a possibility that what a person posts could be
offensive to the government or someone else, which is when the government jumps in and
regulates that information on the Internet through censoring. The concept here brings us to the
question: Should the federal government be allowed to regulate information on the Internet?Inquiry question
Introduction paragraph is good I like the way you kind of take a step by step approach to
explaining what has caused the government to regulate the internet. I would consider editing
your first sentence to have a more attention grabbing introduction sentence. Also I dont see your
thesis statement in this paragraph.

ONeill 2

In order to better understand what the question is asking, one must understand what is
meant by the word regulate. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, regulate means, to
bring (something) under the control of authority (regulate). In other words, when the
government regulates information on the Internet, they are controlling, for the most part, what
information can and cannot be seen or posted. One way in particular that the government is
doing this is through censoring information. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary,
censoring is defined as when a personexamines books, movies, letters, etc, and removes
things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, [and] etc (censor).
The federal government should not be allowed to regulate information on the Internet because it
violates peoples rights, it limits resources, and it could eventually lead to people not knowing
what the truth is anymore.
This is a really important paragraph because you allow the readers to understand specifically
what you are talking about. Im assuming the last sentence in this paragraph is your thesis
statement.
The federal government should not be allowed to regulate information on the Internet
because it violates peoples rights. People have the right to Internet freedoms, and according to
the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech. It is understandable for the federal
government to regulate information by censoring information that is obscene. Their main reason
behind it is because the Internet is accessed by people of all ages, which includes children, and
children should not have access to obscene information. This is the mind set of the federal
government and of the people who agree with this side of the argument. Although they make a
good case on why regulating this specific type of information on the Internet should occur,
censoring this information on the Internet does go against peoples Internet freedoms. I am not

ONeill 3

saying it is okay to look at obscene information, but information should be left alone on the
Internet. It should be up to each individual to censor that information from themselves if they do
not want access to it, but no one, including the government, should be able to censor information
for other people because the government are (is comprised as people) people too. I would edit
the previous sentence because the wording is kind of awkward. Who is to decide what to
regulate? You havent discussed this article before so I would add an introduction sentence. In
her article, Renee Keen states, Its approach to the regulation of Internet content involves
allowing Internet users to regulate their own internet experience by offering tools to assist
citizens in controlling the content that they see, rather than giving this power to a third party or
requiring compliance by law (Keen). This goes along with the First Amendment by means of
freedom of speech and of press. People will go far enough to say that blocking or removing
information that they posted on the Internet is like taking away their right to speak their mind or
read what they want. A law review written by Sean J Petrie states, banning Internet obscenity
restricts speech in an unprecedented manner, such a law requires a careful reexamination of
applicable First Amendment doctrines (Petrie 638). In this quote, Petrie is talking about
obscenity laws for the government to be able to regulate that information, but it is not that simple
to make it just happen because it has to revolve around the First Amendment without it violating
it.
In this paragraph you did a good job of incorporating information from your sources and then
analyzing and altering it to support your thesis. There are only a couple of sentences that I would
maybe reword or add more description but overall I really like the amount of support that is
included in this paragraph.

ONeill 4

The federal government should not be allowed to regulate information on the Internet
because it limits resources. In schools nowadays, students use the Internet to do research for
projects and papers. Students even use the Internet to help look up answers to complete work
sheets. School districts are starting to bring technology into the schools, and some classes have
gone digital to where everything that is needed for the class is online. An article titled
Mythology and Internet Filtering states, So blocked, filtered and locked out is school Internet
access that the Internet is now a useless tool for us, said one Los Angeles art teacher whose
class can't even call up basic portfolios (Males). This is an example of what students and
teachers have to deal with when they are trying to do something for their class, and they are
unable to do it because they are blocked from sites. Censorship in schools does more harm than
good because it is limiting resources for the students. Michael Males writes, Congressnow
wants to use federal funds to force even more school censorship such as mandatory library
blockers (Males). It is quite annoying when a student is doing research for a paper, they go to
click on a link, and it will not let them through because that website is blocked. This has
happened to me on multiple occasions back when I was in middle school and high school. After
a while it seemed like all the sites that I clicked on ended up being blocked, which made it even
harder on me to find information on whatever I was writing my paper. Michael Males writes,
Yes, schools and businesses have an interest in keeping students and employees on task rather
than browsing sports or porn sites, but that (as in any other kind of sloughing) is the job of
supervision, not hysterically sweeping technical censorship (Males). Just like what this quote
says, schools mean well with having censorship in them, but in the long run, having censorship
in schools is very inconvenient kind of awkward phrasing consider rewording. . It does not
enhance learning capabilities, it makes it harder for students to find specific information that they

ONeill 5

need to do well in their classes. In high school, we were told that everything that we do on the
Internet can be seen by the district office, which was a good enough reason for a bunch of the
students to stay on task. I would include that earlier in the paragraph or add another conclusion
sentence.
Once again you do a good job of analyzing the information in your sources and recreating it to
support your topic. There were only a couple of places where the phrasing seemed awkward so I
would read it out loud and try and reword those sentences. Also I would suggest adding a
conclusion sentence to sum up the conclusion of that paragraph.
The federal government should not be allowed to regulate information on the Internet
because it could eventually lead to people not knowing what the truth is anymore. When
someone messes with something (use stronger wording- alters the original information,
tampers with, etc. , such as regulating information, after a while others would not (be able to
detect know that the information has been messed with. This relates to the book 1984 with the
concept of Big Brother. For example, in the book the government takes all of the books and
written materials and regulates them by removing information and changing it to shape what
people learn and think about. The government in the book 1984 basically took all the information
that talked bad- negatively about the government and that they did not agree with, and they
got rid of it by censoring it so that no one would have access to it. This is basically what the
government does in real life, especially in other countries. For example, in the article titled
Internet Censorship by Governments Is a Human Rights Violation, it mentions that a blogger
named Anas Maarawi got arrested in Syria for voicing his views on the Internet (Clinton). The
views that Maarawi was voicing were about the government, and the government did not like it,
which is why he got arrested. Arresting the guy was the easiest way to get him to stop putting

ONeill 6

information that the government did not agree with out on the Internet, so it like a way I think
this is wrong-missing a word of censoring and removing information. In the article that Fred
Charatan wrote, it talks about health websites and how the government does not have a law that
adjusts information on them (Charatan). It states, healthcare experts try to ensure the integrity
of health information on the internet (Charatan). The reason for this is so that people can trust
what they read and not have to worry about it being false information or altered. Health
information has to do with a persons well-being, which does not give the government a reason
to censor or change this kind of information. If the government were to start regulating and/or
censoring this kind of information, eventually no one would question it because they would not
know that it was altered. Another example would be in China. The article titled, Just Doing
Business or Doing Just Business: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! And the Business of Censoring
Chinas Internet states, In the case of Google, the concern was providing China with a version
of a search engine that omitted references to the 1989 events of Tiananmen Square, terms like
freedom, and Falun Gong the banned religious group (Dann 219). It shows that the
information on the Internet, especially in China is censored because in this case, the Chinese
government keeps an eye out on what they want to keep the people of China from knowing. This
censoring will eventually lead to people not knowing what the truth about specific events, like
Tiananmen Square. , is anymore. Some more examples of people eventually not knowing what
the truth is about certain things anymore- too long and awkward I would rephrase due to
censoring information in other countries are mentioned in Renee Keens article. It states,
Germany censors material containing holocaust denials; China actively censors political dissent,
and Brazil and Canada censor broad categories of racial hate speech (Keen). From these
examples, one can tell that the information that the governments, from each of the countries,

ONeill 7

censors are the mistakes that have occurred in the past that they do not want to remember or have
their people talk about.
I like the sources mentioned in this paragraph, they all make really strong points. There are a
couple of places where the phrasing is awkward or more strong wording is needed. I included
some suggestions-but of course dont feel like you need to use them.
In conclusion, there are some good reasons to why information on the Internet should be
regulated, which were mentioned throughout the paper, but the reasons for why the federal
government should not be allowed to regulate information on the Internet outweigh and
outnumber the other-opposing reasons. In the article titled Balancing free speech and
censorship: academias response to the Internet, it says, Information that is unethical and
illegal must be censored. However, gray areas exist where information is considered either
illegal but ethical (for example, gambling sites are illegal in some areas, but considered ethical
by many individuals), or legal but unethical (for example, pornography is considered unethical
by many individuals, but is legal in some areas) (Peace 106). The gray areas (Peace 106) that
Peace talks about in his article are what the government thinks should be censored on the
Internet. Although things such as pornography on the Internet should be censored, it is not the
federal governments say. It is each individuals own decision as toon whether or not they want
access to-sorry didnt revise just accidently erasedss to whatever it may be that is out there on the
Internet. A. Graham Peace states in his article, institutions clearly do not see Internet
censorship as a pressing issue on campuses of institutions (Peace 106). The reason for this is
because most college or university campuses do not have Internet censorship going on, but there
are some that do. Peace writes, The University of Oklahoma initiated a policy of censoring
pornographic Web sites (Peace 106), which would be an example of one of the universities

ONeill 8

where censorship is occurring. According to the article titled Untangling the Web: Exploring
Internet Regulation Schemes in Western Democracies, it says, While all governments have
been faced with novel complications posed by the prevalence of the World Wide Web,
democratic nations have had to confront the uniquely difficult matter of balancing the need to
regulate illegal material, while simultaneously preserving the inherently democratic freedoms
upon which they are built (Keen). In other words, even though the federal government wants to
regulate information, they will abide by the rights and the freedoms of the people, which at least
brings the two sides of the argument to somewhat of an arrangement if this argument is never
settled.
Overall I really enjoyed this paper. All of your sources really added value to the points you were
trying to make both for and against censorship. Your paper flowed really well because of the
way you organized it. I only had a couple suggestions on some sentences where the phrasing was
awkward or I felt you could have used stronger wording. You did a good job of synthesizing the
information and using it to support your thesis. Good job

Word Count: 2027

ONeill 9

Works Cited
Censor. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com online.
Charatan, Fred. "Buyer Beware" Remains US Policy Towards Information on the Net. BMJ:
British Medical Journal 324.7337 (2002): 566566. Web.
Clinton, Hillary. "Internet Censorship by Governments Is a Human Rights Violation." Internet
Censorship. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2014.
Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. of "Remarks at the Conference on Internet Freedom." N.p.: n.p.,
2011. N. pag. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.

Dann, Elijah, and Neil Haddow. "Proxy Login - University Libraries - USC." Proxy Login University Libraries - USC. Springer International Publishing, 30 Mar. 2007. Web. 08
Feb. 2016.
Keen, Renee. "Untangling The Web: Exploring Internet Regulation Schemes In Western
Democracies." San Diego International Law Journal 13.1 (2011): 351-381. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

Males, Michael. "Mythology And Internet Filtering." Teacher Librarian 28.2 (2000):
16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Peace, A. Graham. "BALANCING FREE SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP: Academia's Response To The
Internet." Communications Of The ACM 46.11 (2003): 105-109. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Petrie, Sean J. Indecent Proposals: How Each Branch of the Federal Government Overstepped
Its Institutional Authority in the Development of Internet Obscenity Law. Stanford Law
Review 49.3 (1997): 637665. Web. 8 Feb. 2016.

ONeill 10

Regulate. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com online.