Argument: Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.  In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.  [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009,  on 16/09/11  [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010,  on 16/09/11  [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008,  09/09/11

Counterargument: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11