Internet Censorship

"By disguising the wants and needs, they are infringing upon our rights to free speech, free press, and the right to organize." What I meant is that Internet Censorship hinders our ability to speak the truth, organize against or for the truth. It hinders the ability of the press to print the truth. Let's say something corrupt took place within the government, but they censored all sites that told the truth and allowed all sites that permitted the lies that sound better but aren't true. People would not express their opinion on the corrupt acts because of the censorship; they are not aware of the truth and do not speak any negative opinion of the government. This limits our Freedom of Speech. The press could not print the truth, because the government does not allow the truth to be seen. This limits our Freedom of Press. And, because the government is making everything sound fine and dandy, people will not organize; this goes against our Freedom to Protest. This is the same thing that China does. "Second, King and his team found that Chinese censors focus on posts that refer to, instigate, or are otherwise linked to grassroots collective action such as protests, demonstrations, and even apolitical mass activities, and that the regime seems comparatively more comfortable with criticism of the government." By hindering the truth, the ability of the people to speak freely and protest is hindered; the ability of the press to print freely is hindered. The government tricks the people to believe that everything is okay, and that their wants and needs are being taken of. They don't protest, speak against the government, or print anything against the government. This limits our First Amendment. "...this argument can either be nullified or continued on assumption." I agree to nullify this argument; I do not want to base my stance on something that is assumed. "Is Internet censorship a human rights abuse or does it disguise a human rights abuse?" Internet censorship is both. It suppresses the spread of information to an individual - an abuse of human rights. Several prominent figures in the UN and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declare Internet Censorship an abuse of human rights. “It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity,” said Clinton. This quote was pulled from http://broadbandbreakfast.com.... However, if it is being like the Internet in North Korea, then it disguises human rights abuses. The only reason it is in use in the DPRK is so that the people do not see what is flawed about the country, and its numerous human rights abuses. "South Korean police have identified 43 pro-North Korean websites that have foreign-based servers. The police report that these websites encourage hostile attitudes towards South Korea and western countries, and portray the DPRK in a positive light." Internet Censorship is a human rights abuse, since it suppresses a human’s right to information, but it can also be uses as a tool to disguise human rights abuses, such as in North Korea. "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." Taking away rights cannot be considered human rights. Since some are already justified to have them, taking away those justified rights cannot be considered "Human Rights". Taking away slavery did not hurt the whites directly because it did not damage their right to be free. Women's Suffrage could be considered humans' rights because it does not limit the rights of men. Taking away rights for some so that everybody is on the same level is cannot be considered human rights. "Internet Censorship is an abuse of our constitutional rights..." In the United States, Internet Censorship is an abuse of constitutional and human rights, but in areas that do not permit their citizens this constitutional right, it is an abuse of their human rights. For example, slavery is an abuse of our constitutional and human rights, but in areas that do not permit their citizens this constitutional right, it is an abuse of their human rights. "Why do you accept censorship of television, yet you are highly against censorship on the Internet?" I never said I was pro-television censorship; my stance is the same as it is on Internet censorship. I support a parent's right to censor their child from watching certain things; but once they grow older, and receive all of their rights, they have a right to choose what they watch. You supported this earlier, saying, "This is because at 18, people become a legal adult and can enjoy all rights other adults have, other than drinking of course." You have a right to choose once you reach 18. Internet censorship is an abuse of our constitutional and human rights. Vote for the debater who's argument is more logical.