"
Trapped within a musty room in 1787, the Founding Fathers, of various backgrounds and prestige, came together to ignite a set of rules that were unmatched by any of the time. To initiate ratification, the citizens established their need to have their rights protected. The people were determined to ensure a non-dominating government was to be put in place. A stable foreground for America was laid to rest through the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments notably discontinued the rumor of a continuity of dictation upon non-elites. The first of these amendments states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the …show more content…
The Constitution reiterated the notion of a government that was not intrusive to the public. Coming from England, there was constant dictation upon the citizens. The Founding Fathers wanted to construct a powerful nation while remaining respectful of the liberties and freedoms of individuals. Having tradition prominent throughout America’s history, it would be hypocritical to go against the Founding Fathers beliefs on freedom and the free will of the people. Therefore, having the government monitor the internet would break the institution of Americans being able to communicate and learn freely. Due to the internet’s advantages including an increase in knowledge, as well as a way to connect people across the world, it should not be limited in any form. Not only do the benefits outweigh the damages, but, if the government allows its citizens to no longer be fully informed, it limits their grasp on the severity of issues, and their overall understanding of the world. Citizens rely heavily on the media to provide them with their political knowledge, as well as current events. Information is no longer being read with coffee in the morning, but rather, news is being notified to people directly through the …show more content…
If the government had access to monitor the internet, it could place limits on how much one could dissect someone’s character or actions, inherently causing ignorance. The internet can include various databases and sources that provide false information, and demeaning and harmful language. Monitoring the internet on a government level can only stop from the public seeing what is written, but to my knowledge, the air could still spread information. People will always have their opinions, some more radical than others. However, humans are bred to learn, from past mistakes, or victories. People also can fundamentally take lessons from different experiences and acquired knowledge they learn through others. Although radical viewpoints can be distributed to a larger amount of consumers through the internet, if the government monitored the internet, it would essentially inflict citizens with having a tunneled vision when coming to conclusions. It is important that the public knows of these concerns. Without radical ideas, progress and change could no longer occur. It is important to note that radical is not synonymous with obscenity. Rather, it is an idea or message that does not correlate to a previously known
Trapped within a musty room in 1787, the Founding Fathers, of various backgrounds and prestige, came together to ignite a set of rules that were unmatched by any of the time. To initiate ratification, the citizens established their need to have their rights protected. The people were determined to ensure a non-dominating government was to be put in place. A stable foreground for America was laid to rest through the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments notably discontinued the rumor of a continuity of dictation upon non-elites. The first of these amendments states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the …show more content…
The Constitution reiterated the notion of a government that was not intrusive to the public. Coming from England, there was constant dictation upon the citizens. The Founding Fathers wanted to construct a powerful nation while remaining respectful of the liberties and freedoms of individuals. Having tradition prominent throughout America’s history, it would be hypocritical to go against the Founding Fathers beliefs on freedom and the free will of the people. Therefore, having the government monitor the internet would break the institution of Americans being able to communicate and learn freely. Due to the internet’s advantages including an increase in knowledge, as well as a way to connect people across the world, it should not be limited in any form. Not only do the benefits outweigh the damages, but, if the government allows its citizens to no longer be fully informed, it limits their grasp on the severity of issues, and their overall understanding of the world. Citizens rely heavily on the media to provide them with their political knowledge, as well as current events. Information is no longer being read with coffee in the morning, but rather, news is being notified to people directly through the …show more content…
If the government had access to monitor the internet, it could place limits on how much one could dissect someone’s character or actions, inherently causing ignorance. The internet can include various databases and sources that provide false information, and demeaning and harmful language. Monitoring the internet on a government level can only stop from the public seeing what is written, but to my knowledge, the air could still spread information. People will always have their opinions, some more radical than others. However, humans are bred to learn, from past mistakes, or victories. People also can fundamentally take lessons from different experiences and acquired knowledge they learn through others. Although radical viewpoints can be distributed to a larger amount of consumers through the internet, if the government monitored the internet, it would essentially inflict citizens with having a tunneled vision when coming to conclusions. It is important that the public knows of these concerns. Without radical ideas, progress and change could no longer occur. It is important to note that radical is not synonymous with obscenity. Rather, it is an idea or message that does not correlate to a previously known