Internet Censorship

"By disguising the wants and needs, they are infringing upon our rights to free speech, free press, and the right to organize."This statement is on the confusing side. 1. How do they disguise the wants and needs (of the people, I'm assuming)?- People's wants and needs cannot be disguised, therefore not a violation of freedom of speech. I am going to have to ask you to expand on this idea if possible."Also - the government does not have a right to privacy. I have searched the Internet for a while now and have found no source that claims the government has a right to privacy."Because neither of us have found a source to support these claims, this argument can either be nullified or continued on assumption. I will agree to void this argument unless evidence is brought up by my opponent. I just thought it was common knowledge that the government has its rights as well as anyone else, but I guess that the people who serve to protect us, the people of the Government, do not recieve the same rights as any non-federal person."A year later, that number decreased to 34%."As I have given a source for my side and my opponent has not, we will accept my statistics as the most valid until my opponent proves otherwise- using a reliable source."Internet censorship is a way to disguise human rights abuses..."The whole basis of your argument is that internet censorship is a human rights abuse, but in this statement, you said that internet censorship "[disguises] human rights abuses." Which is it? Is internet censorship a human rights abuse or does it disguise a human rights abuse? Answer carefully, however, because either way you anser, some part of your argument may be negated."Just because it was legal, does that mean that it was not an abuse of human rights?"Human Rights- a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. Let me note the use of the word "believed." Human rights is a concept that people give to themselves, however, in the instance of slavery, it was "believed" that slaves had no rights, that slaves were not humans, that they were property [1]. I know this sounds ridiculous, but in this analogy, I feel it is appropriate to ask, Is it justifiable to give your house rights? This is what the people thought about slaves, they were property undeserving of human rights. As times changed, however, and people suggested that they were humans, they got rights with the 13-15th Amendments."Internet Censorship is an abuse of our constitutional rights; nations that have Internet Censorship are trying to hide that their citizens' rights are being abused."Once again, you have stated that internet censorship is NOT a violation of human rights, but instead, a DISGUISE of human rights abuse. With these faults in your debate, I would normally ask that all arguments of your be nullified, but this may be an honest mistake. I suggest that you state your concrete opinion, otherwise I will have no choice but to yet again bring it up in the final statement.Before we continue, I must give a definition of "Internet Censorship" as my opponent has not done so. I apologize for this being late in the debate, but I just realized that censorship is not only on a governmental level. Internet Censorship is defined as followed, "Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative. [2]" Now while I do admit that it says private organization, it is not only the government who can censor the internet, so by revoking internet censorship, are you not revoking the peoples' rights of the private institutions?And my final question is this, Why do you accept censorship of television, yet you are highly against censorship on the internet?Sources:[1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;