Home > #4, Regulation > Media Regulation

Media Regulation

I do not think the U.S. government should be getting involved in media regulation because the very act of media regulation goes against our right to free speech.  Plenty of people both good and bad have and deserve access to the Internet, and it’s impossible to determine what exactly is “hurtful” of national security interests.

The difficulty in allowing restriction of the Internet is that once an entity has the power of control, it will become increasingly difficult to manage their ability and choice to regulate beyond what is only absolutely necessary and relevant.  With the greedy nature of politicians and lobbyists today, restriction would quickly become just another tool in the government’s arsenal of ways to skew our mind, perception, and vote in their favor.  I think it’s a challenge to determine who and what group of individuals is given the power to execute such a strong authority.

If the government chose not to listen and began blocking material – on the positive side, our Internet would certainly become a cleaner, friendlier place with a more positive outlook on the United States.  However on the negative side, the government could be hiding the truth from us, people with peaceful albeit differing viewpoints could be silenced without just cause, and the reliability of information could become questionable.

If the government took my position and maintained net neutrality, the Internet would continue to mimic the harsh but true reality that our real life looks like every day.  By simply blocking Internet pages, the government wont be able to completely stop groups and persons that intend to harm the United States.  But they will make a lot of people even more infuriated with the U.S. government.  The Internet is a tool that is of equal importance and value to every person that chooses to utilize it, and the government should know its people would never stand for a regulated, restricted Internet space.





Categories: #4, Regulation Tags:
  1. January 20, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    If you are in favor of no media regulation from the government, then this represents a change in policy, as we currently have media regulation in several forms as discussed in the book (FCC, DMCA, etc.). To receive credit for this blog, reference some of what’s in the chapter on regulation.
    Who should be responsible for determining when information becomes a national security risk if not the government? In the case of Wikileaks, it has been left to Julian Assange and other Wikileaks leaders, and they delegated some authority to several large news outlets. Is that better or worse? Your focus here is on governmental intrusion. Are there any cases in which the government could employ regulation so as to ensure greater diversity of voices? If not, doesn’t that leave this up to the corporations by default?

  2. Tommy Joyce
    January 20, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    I think the current use of regulation (FCC blocking vulgar language, explicit content etc) is perfectly acceptable and important to guard the eyes and minds of younger audiences, but only as long as this use of censorship does not detract from the overall message of the article or piece. I think its appropriate for media outlets to be given the power to decide whether or not the information requires censorship. The government utilizes security clearances, if they are incapable of keeping classified documents safe that is something they need to work on within their own organization.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: