Society, especially the younger generation, has become dependent on the Internet for expression, communication and research. What if the freedom to express oneself via the Internet was taken away? It can come in the form of internet censorship. Censorship is the suppression 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, citizens of the United States have freedom of speech. Censorship raises the issue of free speech. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Internet is a form of communication between countries, cities, and the world that has revolutionized over time. The Internet first emerged in the 1970s, but it wasn't until the 1990s that it became available to the public in the United States. By 2015, an estimated 3.2 billion people, or nearly half the world's population, had access to the Internet. North Korea, China and eight other countries heavily practice Internet censorship. Less than 5% of North Koreans have any type of Internet access, and those who do have access are monitored at all times (Kilpatrick, 2018). In many countries, censorship is often directed against political ideas or criticism of the government. The Chinese government has the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks access to some websites. They control other sites by forcing the public to provide their national identification number to access the Internet in bars. People who violate the rules are punished severely. Other democratic countries also practice censorship, including Canada, Great Britain and Germany. In Canada, free speech is under attack as books are removed from Canadian libraries and schools. Open media organized a large "Do Not Censor" campaign to fight the website blocking plan. In the case Google v. Equustek it was ruled that Google must remove worldwide links to full websites that contain pages allegedly selling in violation of trade secret rights. This decision will likely encourage other countries to try to enforce their own laws. Britain has a long history of censoring "unacceptable" material in film and television. Surveillance and policing measures have currently been strengthened. States are introducing widespread surveillance of online reporting, filtering and tracking practices. In Germany, a law called NetzDG has been passed, which imposes huge fines on social networks if they do not 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 US companies including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and MySpace. There has been an increase in government control over the Internet. The scope of censorship would only continue to increase if the censorship law was passed. Internet censorship in the form of websites, media, commentary, news, and education should not be allowed in the United States. Censorship interferes with everyone's rights. It would have many negative impacts on the lives of citizens as it would constitute a violation of our rights and personal freedom. It will also impact education and the economy. The power to censor material can be abused as subjective opinions emerge. Educational information and communication can be obtained via the Internet. Everyone has access to a huge amount of information. People can connect with others around the world: freedom to post on the Internet and haveinformation available at any time. An individual can share their thoughts, views and opinions with others. Censorship will only suppress an individual's opinion in the media, from news to independent viewpoints. Censorship violates our freedom to express ideas and beliefs as they see fit. Everyone has the right to information on the Internet, for educational purposes or for their own knowledge on a topic. Censorship is a way to limit and control published information. For example, if the news were censored and the comments regarding the news, this would bring back the fact that news should be factual and truthful supported by evidence. If it were to be censored, it would suppress a certain side or topic from the audience. The comments and discussions that arise from the newspaper open up useful insights into other opinions. In 2007, Verizon attempted to block the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America from using its text messaging services to talk 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 "unpleasant" messages. Verizon took away the right to textual material, someone's right to free speech to discuss topics. Verizon should not be allowed to control and censor the conversation. Censorship can affect small businesses and education. It will have a dramatic impact on the child's education. Education is about preparing for life, but if the learning process is influenced by censorship, how about developing awareness of the world in school? This will lead to a narrow worldview with holes in children's cultural and international education. Censorship affects not only children but also teachers whose resources are limited by censorship. It limits the teacher's ability to explore all possible avenues to motivate and teach students by reducing the ideas that can be discussed in class. Censorship will limit the child's ability to grow and learn at the same time, ultimately leading to bigotry. Businesses will also be affected by the fact that their message or product cannot be promoted and sold online. Some companies' products will not be able to be viewed or accessed by consumers, especially on an international scale (Poland, n.d.). They are at a disadvantage compared to other competitors in the industry who would be allowed to sell online. Censorship will only benefit those in power and the government because they would be the regulators who decide what is good or bad for society to see online. Giving the government that power will strip us of our rights. For example, the Combating Online Inceptivement and Counterfeits Act, a recent bill that allowed the Attorney General to take down websites suspected of engaging in infringing activity. This has raised some concerns that the Justice Department has much more power over website content. They will decide whether the material or comment constitutes hate speech or offensive speech. Real information can be controlled based on the morals and values ​​of the supervisor. This is the moment when prejudices 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. In this way, we blindfold the audience to awareness of the world around them. A video emerges on Breitbart News of Google's weekly TGIF meetings in which employees and leadership discuss issues. In the video, Google co-founder Sergey Brin said that “as an immigrant… I find thedeeply offensive elections." People were concerned about Google's biased opinion of the president and how it might affect the web search engine (Swisher, 2018). With censorship it means that 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 so controversial and challenge the system, but they should not be censored. There should be room for opposing points of view 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 their opinions. And if citizens don't like what the government does, they have every right to make it known. The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing platforms Internet to censor its users (Harmon, 2018). Despite good intentions, it was a bad law. The bill also expands existing federal criminal law to target online platforms where sex trafficking content appears. The bill is worded so broadly that it could even be used against platform owners who do not know that their sites are being used for trafficking purposes. Online platforms will have no choice but to become much more restrictive about the type of discussion they allow, censoring innocent people in the process. The internet will become a less inclusive place. Ultimately, if censorship were enabled, this could lead to an abuse of such power that would affect us without our knowledge. The consequences of censorship will be dramatic. This situation can be linked to the book 1984 by George Orwell who wrote about a totalitarian society where everything is censored and monitored. The big boss (government) is always watching the public. The audience continues to live their lives without the meaning or truth of the outside world. The public doesn't even know which country they are fighting a war against. With internet censorship, there is a lack of truth and the power to hide it would be given to a select few in 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 yourself from them than to relegate them to an unknown realm where they can grow out of control. Censorship advocates target materials containing sexuality. The reason is the safety of what the child can find online. They discuss how the Internet is not safe for a child without censorship and that online games can lead to addiction (Kilpatrick, 2018). It should be the parent's responsibility to ensure that their child does not spend too much time on the Internet, thus leading to addiction. There is no need to resort to censorship just because of what a child can find online about hatred against certain religions or pornography. Guardians should have control and knowledge of what the child accesses. There are other measures taken outside the home, such as the school preventing students from accessing certain websites. There is also the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000, which requires libraries and schools to limit minors' access to sustainable materials and pornography filters on computers with federally funded Internet access. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 2000 protects children's privacy online. These acts protect minors, so there is no need to censor information for all citizens. Opponents also argue.