Internet Censorship in USA

"Would me saying that we should censor the Internet put people's rights in jeopardy; therefore, infringing rights?" This is a very confusing statement; I do not understand what you are stating. If you are saying that censoring the Internet puts people's rights in jeopardy - yes, it does. "Congress" only has the right to suspend the First Amendment if what it on the Internet is an infringement of someone's rights. An example of this would be child pornography. Another example would be suspending voting rights for felons. Everyone has the right to vote at a certain age, but if you infringe on these rights, you loose your right. "Obscenity is not just for children." "In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.” This is pulled from the website you cited: http://www.freedomforum.org.... "This makes you for Internet censorship because you agree there are situations where it should be censored." I have said consistently that Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of our constitutional rights unless other constitutional rights are being infringed upon. In situations where no right is infringed upon, then the government is simply abusing our right to free speech, free press, and other such rights. The government has no right to suspend information or opinion from us that does not abuse our constitutional rights. "...the first amendment say "Congress" so a state could censor it then." Notice that is does not distinguish the type of Congress; it says neither national congress nor state congress. This means that no "Congress" can suspend our First Amendment rights. A state needs approval from a Congress as well - a state Congress. The Constitution does not define "Congress" as a national or state assembly, so any type or form of Congress cannot suspend our First Amendment rights - plain and simple. "Internet Censorship is perfectly constitutional and my opponent agrees." I have said consistently that unless other rights are infringed or abused, Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of our constitutional rights. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Internet censorship by the government for the benefit of the government is an abuse of our rights. An example. Owning a gun is constitutional; however, when one abuses this right and commits acts of violence with that gun, you are infringing upon other's rights. Your right can be suspended. Another example. Voting is constitutional; however, when one abuses this right and commits voter fraud or commits a felon, you are infringing upon other's rights. Your right can be suspended. The Constitution does not provided the right to infringe upon other's rights for your own benefit. In the same way, government cannot infringe upon our rights to free speech, free press, etc. for a benefit of their own. In conclusion, Internet censorship by the government is not constitutional - however, if it infringes upon one's rights, it is constitutional; the Constitution does not provide the right to abuse the rights of others for a benefit of your own. In the same way, Internet censorship by the government for the benefit of the government is unconstitutional. I have stated consistently that Internet censorship by the government for the benefit of the government is unconstitutional; my opponent simply states that all forms of censorship are constitutional, which is untrue. The constitution does not provide "Congress" the right to censor unless one's rights are infringed upon. My opponent says that all forms of Internet censorship are acceptable and are not infringement of our rights. Please look over the First Amendment again. Vote for the debater who's argument is more logical.