7B
Tam Nga Yin Agnes
Write a debate speech EITHER for OR against the following motion:
"It is the responsibility of the government to impose censorship on the Internet."
Mr. Chairperson, Honourable Adjudicators, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today’s motion is that “It is the responsibility of the government to impose
censorship on the Internet. I am speaking against the motion. The word “censor”,
according the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s dictionary, is to examine any book,
movie, etc. and remove parts considered offensive. That implies anybody who wants
to post anything on the web has to get the government’s approval beforehand.
It is totally unacceptable, unnecessary and infeasible.
First, one of the powerful reasons that you should oppose the motion is that
internet censorship is an infringement of freedom of the press and speech, our basic
civil liberties in a modern world.
We should be entitled to express our own opinions and thoughts without restraints,
even if they are not the things the government wants to hear. Though the proposition
may accuse indecent materials, like violence and hardcore pornography on the
Internet as they may have bad influence on youngsters, it is ridiculous to ask the
government to censor and delete them on the web to protect our youth. Just because
this would give a chance to those totalitarian governments wanting to restrict people’s
freedom of speech and make use of this power to voice out opposition in the name of
“protecting the young minds”. Countries like China is notorious for having used this
tool to restrict the sites to which their citizens have access, though the sites may not
be immoral and offensive in content, they are just sharing political ideas different
from the PRC’s ones.
Since what materials should be banned can hardly be clearly defined, the vague
bottom line and the large grey area would be manipulated by those totalitarian
governments. This is a huge cost that I believe, we cannot afford to pay. Preventing
individuals from exploring others’ thoughts and ideas on the web is preventing
expansion of knowledge and power, especially at a time when fast, free flow of
information provided by the Internet is so unprecedented. As long as there is the
presence of censorship, all internet users’ identities would be exposed to the
government, we will lose our anonymity and confidentiality when we try to write a
blog. This is definitely discouraging the sharing of ideas and of course, discouraging
the growth and diversity of a society. When we are supposed to treasure such an
information medium brought by our advanced technology and savour the fruits of
fighting for liberties and freedom which symbolize our delicate civilization, I simply
do not see why our opponents have to take a step backwards and forgo our civil
rights.
Second, I would like to elaborate on why internet censorship is not necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you all believe that we are mature individuals, living in a
civilized society, then you would agree with me that should be able to exercise
self-regulation but not depending on the government to control what we should read
or should not read. What the government deems “good” is not necessarily the way t
we consider so. Very often, it is not. Even if it is information objectionable, it is up to
the citizens to decide how to take it after their own analysis and thinking. Perhaps the
proposition may again adamantly argue that the teenagers are not mature enough to
judge what to read, again, it is not the government’s responsibility to give advice but
their parents. The parental regulation is the most efficient and reasonable way to
nurture a child’s mind. It’s the parents and teachers who can explain to children why
porno and violence are bad. While the government, at its most, can only ban indecent
materials without giving children any reason. That doesn’t help in nurturing the young
minds. After all, persuasion, not coercion is the solution. If a kid wants to read porno
things, he or she can get a magazine easily from bookstores or anywhere other than
the Internet. Sure the government can ban some websites, but there is no way to ban
curiosity. Besides, if one doesn’t want the kids to have access to websites containing
violent and adult content, he or she can make use of the web filtering system widely
available nowadays. And they are proved to be very efficient. Also, there are already
laws against any publication and production of hardcore pornography and violence.
They are enough to deter people from doing so.
Last but not least, internet censorship by the governments is not practical in a
sense even if a government can successfully censor websites within its border, it is
impossible for it to censor ones overseas abroad. Moreover, the standards for
“decency” vary greatly among nations; countries like China are more conservative
than the broad-minded ones like the USA. I wonder why we still have to pour our
resources on doing something so infeasible!
We are not saying everything on the web would not jeopardize our society,
however, using censorship is a double-edged sword which requires us to pay a high
price if manipulated by evil governments. Our freedom of speech is something we do
not compromise, and never will. Seeing it not necessary and feasible, I hope the
audience would agree with us that today’s motion does not stand. Thank you!