The Restriction of the Internet is a Human Rights Abuse.

I have only one argument, which should suffice:Illegal Websites are blocked by many countries including the United States. Illegal Websites constitute many things including governmental secret leaks, child pornography websites, terrorist organization recruitment websites, and pretty much any other website that goes against he constitution of whichever country. If a country blocks or restricts these websites, can it be said they are committing a human rights abuse? I don't believe so. Let's look at the incidence of smallpox. this disease which was 10x more severe than Ebola or malaria was eventually eradicated from the earth, however, other countries had done experiments with smallpox to create biological weapons and utilize them in ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). North Korea has some as do Russia, Iran, Iraq, and more. The instructions to create this biologically engineered strain of smallpox is kept under lock somewhere in the U.S. government. Let's assume that someone somehow gets their hands on that and decides to post it online, where other countries can utilize it to create biological terror. Should the United States not immediately block that website and others that may hold this information? At the point where the information being spread online threatens the life of people, or the sovereignty of a nation, it should be blocked. This happens now as well. Freedom of Speech, which Americans tend to argue in every which way is technically not freedom of speech. If I stand on a podium and tell everyone to go shoot the president, guess who is going to get either thrown in jail or shot on the spot? Me! So freedom of speech doesn't apply everywhere, and it shouldn't online either. Now onto rebuttal:First, I applaud your arguments! They are sincerely very well thought out. (I really hope that doesn't sound sarcastic because it isn't). I am going to assume you drew the Article 11 and Article 2 arguments from the European Convention on Human Rights? Right? Let's take a look at that. Article 11 says, and I quote, "You also have the right to form and be part of a trade union, a political party or any another association or voluntary group. Nobody has the right to force you to join a protest, trade union, political party or another association."[1] I see how you can argue this, but I believe that the reason for this article being in the Humans Right Act is to make sure that nobody forces anybody to join a party, union, association, etc. The Act was created in 1998, when Internet was a little baby, so I'm pretty sure, while it can be interpreted to include the Internet, it probably wasn't meant to include the Internet.But enough of that, let's look at Article 2 of the First Protocol which says, and I quote, "No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."[2] While the same argument of how this Article most likely does not apply to the Internet could work here, I want to throw in something new so let's look at it this way: There are websites out there that encourage people to be terrorists. Isis even reaches out to people on DATING SITES![3]. I do understand the concern of education, but at the point where ISIS can "educate" people to mindlessly kill and murder, it really puts this argument on the line. I'm sure you were arguing about normal K-12 education which, I too, believe everyone should have access to, but the word education can be interpreted in so many ways and can apply to so many cases, that in the end, it can be used for bad things. You then talk about how restricting Internet in countries tends to be for political gain. This statement is true, however is that necessarily bad? What if a government promotes a democratic or representative form of government and wants to snuff out any people encouraging a oligarchy led by an organization that brings death into the world? At this point, can we say that all restrictions of the Internet leading to political gain is bad? In the end, I leave you with this, education and freedom to assemble is VERY VERY important no doubt about that, but at the point where, by not restricting the Internet, lives can be at stake, I believe the restriction of the Internet is not a human rights abuse. Yes, some countries do restrict the Internet solely for bad purposes, but those countries usually tend to be the countries that A) No one likes and B) No one supports and are currently committing human rights abuses in other ways. In general, most countries block the Internet to keep their citizens safe. That's why people join a country or government. For freedom and safety. And for most of the countries that are engaged in restricting the Internet (which includes the United States) it's for good and to ensure that the people have freedom and safety.Thanks!Sources:[1]https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...[2]http://www.echr.coe.int...[3]http://www.pri.org...