Argument: The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.

Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.

[1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’, http://alis.isoc.org/index.en.html

[2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media &amp; Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/4/1/9.short on 09/09/11

[3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12360045 on

Candidate 1: "We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.

[1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech on 09/09/11."
Candidate 2: "Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesn’t like – raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people – whether or not it is a popular measure at the time."
Candidate 3: "The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.

[1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011, http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16028962 on 09/09/11.

[2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers, http://www.ayjw.org/articles.php?id=944449 on 09/09/11."
Candidate 4: "As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.

Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] .

[1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central, http://publishingcentral.com/articles/20030215-85-f98b.html?si=1 on 09/09/11

[2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007, http://www.citytvweb.com/television-censorship/ on 09/09/11.

[3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country &amp; Region’, http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ on 09/09/11

[4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011, http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/09/17-percent-of-photobucket-users-upload-video-once-a-day.html on 09/09/11"
Candidate 5: "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, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fake-world-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmless-fun.html on 16/09/11

[2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&amp;page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11

[3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 16/09/11.

[4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&amp;page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11

[5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/white-power-likes-t... on 16/09/11

[6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008, http://www.brownejacobson.com/press_office/press_releases/councils_owe_v... 09/09/11"
Candidate 6: "The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.

We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.

[1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 on 09/09/11

[2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 on 09/09/11"
Candidate 7: "Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.

Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government [1] , have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham [2] . Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage [3] , which resulted in the destruction of property [4] , physical violence towards others [5] , and even the deaths of three young men [6] . These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands [7] . To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring.

[1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Internet-censorship-tightening-in-Vietnam... 09/09/11

[2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14452097 on 09/09/11

[3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 09/09/11

[4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million on 09/09/11.

[5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024203/UK-RIOTS-2011-David-Came... on 09/09/11.

[6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693095/Birmingham-riots-th... on 09/09/11.

[7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/10/uk-riots-cleanup-could-co_n_9... on 09/09/11."

The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.

[1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011, http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16028962 on 09/09/11.

[2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers, http://www.ayjw.org/articles.php?id=944449 on 09/09/11.
