Media Paragraph
Restricting expression on the anonymous internet explorer?
Good luck… -.-
consider this:
*Would I, being a fairly devoted vegetarian, purposely visit a meat-obsessed website in my personal time then complain about being extremely offended? No, because I know that I would have to personally CHOOSE to visit a site that contrasts greatly to my value.
It is fascinating to think about how much the media affects what we, as the public, end up learning through pictures and articles published. How much editing a picture may go through, or how twisted a story may get it isn’t commonly thought about.
It is not true that we live under a human right that allows for free expression? Yet we continually complain everytime someone’s ideas clash with another. Groups that depict what THEY believe as right can be expressed anywhere at anytime, but publically it is limited or edited for content. It is also common for we, as society to regard extreme personal or group expression to be either egocentric or contrastingly annoying.
But what about the world-wide web? How much of a difference is there from surfing the web and find pictures or paragraphs on a subject than watching a news program full of pictures AND verbal words?? I would say not a huge amount of a difference.
When an individual posts their own beliefs on the World Wide Web, it is visible to anyone around the world at any time. The internet can be used in a threatening aspect, or a safer environmentt free from judgement. Should there even be any limitations to this anonymous and/or threatening way of posting personal ideas? In my opinion, I have never heard of a sole individual being forced to read, watch a newscast or visit a webpage that illustrates strong beliefs that directly contradict his or her own values.
People are aware of the many risks of the internet and all the potentially offending viewpoints that are freely posted out there, and in the end MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES. Why should there be restrictions if people are grown-up enough to make decisions about what they view in their personal time? The internet is a great place to express your approach to a subject semi-anonymously.
Articles in newspapers or TV-repots must by monitor some what by head-stations, but the internet is an anonymous network of hundreds of millions of people expressing their own viewpoints. Should there be limitations into what I can post on this blog if I know that my opinion should, heaven-forbid, offend someone? No beacuse there are many people, including myself, who are well aware of how to be open-minded to the differentiating society we live in.
I think more people should learn how to go about living this way or deal with being offended quite frequently.
Even if restrictions were to exist, how would an individual or group of authoritative people go about successfully making sure people dont express too-personal issues? They could track the computer used, but then again, how many people could possibly use that computer? Fingerprinting? hmmm...good luck with that.
It all boils down to this: The internet is a tricky place to catch someone, and also convict them of offending someone, to begin with.
--SaraH*
Good luck… -.-
consider this:
*Would I, being a fairly devoted vegetarian, purposely visit a meat-obsessed website in my personal time then complain about being extremely offended? No, because I know that I would have to personally CHOOSE to visit a site that contrasts greatly to my value.
It is fascinating to think about how much the media affects what we, as the public, end up learning through pictures and articles published. How much editing a picture may go through, or how twisted a story may get it isn’t commonly thought about.
It is not true that we live under a human right that allows for free expression? Yet we continually complain everytime someone’s ideas clash with another. Groups that depict what THEY believe as right can be expressed anywhere at anytime, but publically it is limited or edited for content. It is also common for we, as society to regard extreme personal or group expression to be either egocentric or contrastingly annoying.
But what about the world-wide web? How much of a difference is there from surfing the web and find pictures or paragraphs on a subject than watching a news program full of pictures AND verbal words?? I would say not a huge amount of a difference.
When an individual posts their own beliefs on the World Wide Web, it is visible to anyone around the world at any time. The internet can be used in a threatening aspect, or a safer environmentt free from judgement. Should there even be any limitations to this anonymous and/or threatening way of posting personal ideas? In my opinion, I have never heard of a sole individual being forced to read, watch a newscast or visit a webpage that illustrates strong beliefs that directly contradict his or her own values.
People are aware of the many risks of the internet and all the potentially offending viewpoints that are freely posted out there, and in the end MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES. Why should there be restrictions if people are grown-up enough to make decisions about what they view in their personal time? The internet is a great place to express your approach to a subject semi-anonymously.
Articles in newspapers or TV-repots must by monitor some what by head-stations, but the internet is an anonymous network of hundreds of millions of people expressing their own viewpoints. Should there be limitations into what I can post on this blog if I know that my opinion should, heaven-forbid, offend someone? No beacuse there are many people, including myself, who are well aware of how to be open-minded to the differentiating society we live in.
I think more people should learn how to go about living this way or deal with being offended quite frequently.
Even if restrictions were to exist, how would an individual or group of authoritative people go about successfully making sure people dont express too-personal issues? They could track the computer used, but then again, how many people could possibly use that computer? Fingerprinting? hmmm...good luck with that.
It all boils down to this: The internet is a tricky place to catch someone, and also convict them of offending someone, to begin with.
--SaraH*
posted by Sociarah at 2:21 PM
1 Comments:
REally good, Sarah. What about children viewing material you don't want them viewing? It is easy to put in a google search on something rather unoffensive and end up on sites that are terribly offensive. What would you do if it was your kid? What if you don't have control all the time over your child? What about when they are at a friend's place? Should the government stop certain sites so that our children are not getting shown them?
Post a Comment
<< Home