In today’s media-driven world, a variety of content is accessible on the web, being sometimes questionable regading safety. This has generated a debate about whether the government should intervene in banning specific content from the internet. In this essay, I will advocate for freedom of expression and will take into consideration an intervention on limited circumstances.
First and foremost, people should be able to freely publish any information and share their personal views and insights. Furthermore, finding diverse opinions and content on websites, fosters creativity, political debate, and social engagement. Secondly, the government intervention could be biased, censoring only data that goes against their political statements. As a result, it could influence society to have an unique opinion favorable to their ideals, which would be dangerous since it will hinder critical thinking.
On the other hand, I believe that institutions should interfere if the content threats citizens physical well-being. For example, illegal website with criminal activity such as those fomenting physical and sexual abuse, drugs, and psychological mental diseases, need to be controlled and ban by national authorities. However, rules would need to be stablish when choosing detrimetal content; for example not banning abstract information such as diets, which could harm to an extent, but still not being of the same importance as the factors mention previously.
In conclusion, people have the right to speak their minds and express any opinion they like, as long as they are not critically dangerous for people’s safety. Moreover, governments should not interfere as they could lean towards political views, so political-independent organizations should take charge of those measures.