FratFiles

• Save Paper

Does Internet Really Need Regulations?

The article "The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger?" written by Cathleen Cleaver is a clear claim of the necessity of government regulation to control what is being shown on the Internet. To support her claim, Cleaver gives the pornographic web sites as an example. She argues that the regulations used to control the selling of pornography applied to porn stores, magazines, and television should also be applied to the Internet. The reason for such necessity is that it is impossible to control who is actually accessing such web sites. Following this reason, Cleaver's main claim in the article is that children can access pornographic web sites on the Internet. This claim is clearly stated by Cleaver in the fourth paragraph of her essay: "When considering what is in the public interest, we must consider the whole public, including children, as individual participants in this new medium" (460). After that her following paragraphs give......

View the rest of this paper...

Approximate Word Count: 987
Approximate Pages: 4 (250 words per double-spaced page)

Similar Essays

1. The Internet: A Clear And Present Danger
   

   The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger Does Internet Really Need Regulations? The article "The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger?" written by Cathleen Cleaver is a clear

2. Danger Of Malware
   

   Danger of Malware Computer worms and viruses pose a clear and present danger for corporate and public information security in that as time and technology progress, the damaging

3. Kids Vs Kids
   

   elementary school. In the past fifteen years school violence has become a clear but present danger. It used to be children were involved in fistfights, or other types of

4. Brandenburg V. Ohio
   

   any such group to promote such aims. Ohio authorities pressed the issue of "clear and present danger." The Court's opinion was unanimous and reversed the conviction. They believed

5. The Sedition Acts: Was Eugene Debs Rightly Convicted?
   

   recruitment efforts. The Court also concluded these inferences posed a "clear and present danger" to the country under a precedent established months before in Schenck v.