Internet Censorship in USA

"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." You said anything that puts peoples' rights in jeopardy is an infringement on their rights. Since, you think that Internet censorship infringes on peoples' rights. Then anything that supports Internet censorship would put their rights in jeopardy. Since anything that puts rights in jeopardy is an infringement of rights it should follow that any argument for Internet censorship is an infringement of rights. "In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.” This is true but you missed the very first sentence "In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection." "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 infringes upon, then the government is simply abusing our right to free speech, free press, and other such rights." You still say there are forms of Internet censorship that are constitutional which is my entire point. "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." This is simple not true. Here is why, in the 13 original colonies every colony had a state-sponsored religion. [1] This was not against the constitution because the states did it, and this was agreed by the people who wrote the constitution. "I have said consistently that unless other rights are infringed or abused, Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of our constitutional rights." You still say there are forms of Internet censorship that are constitutional which is my entire point. "In conclusion, Internet censorship by the government is not constitutional - however, if it infringes upon one's rights, it is constitutional" My opponent even states there is constitutional reasons to censor the Internet, which is what I have been arguing all along. " My opponent simply states that all forms of censorship are constitutional, which is untrue." The only thing that is untrue is this statement. I never said that all forms of censorship are constitutional. This is clearly a straw man logical fallacy [2] What I have said in the first round "I do support some Internet Censorship as it can protect children and inventors." "Vote for the debater who's argument is more logical." I could not agree more, please do vote for the person who uses less logical fallacies. Even my opponent says there are constitutional ways to censor the Internet, this was my whole point. Sources: [1] http://undergod.procon.org... [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...