I see where Michael Kinsley is coming from and agree with a large portion of what he says. Kinsley makes it clear from the start that he is biased (he works at Microsoft) and believes technology is a good thing because it has “expanded human freedom”. His main focus is the internet. Building on this it is Kinsley’s belief that censorship of the internet in unconstitutional. He attempts to address a counter argument but does a poor job of disqualifying it. The example that Michael gives for the counter-argument (pro-censorship) is children being exposed to pornography. I believe that it is easy to look at this and say “So what? A kid saw a naked woman and got a little freaked out”, but what about more serious issues? There is a much stronger counter argument that Kinsley is afraid to acknowledge.
The internet gives sexual predators’ easy access to children. Every day children are contacted by such people pretending to be kids themselves, wanting to meet up in person through instant messaging on the internet. Another example of how the internet can be harmful is the unlimited knowledge that it leaves at one’s fingertips. Knowledge of things such as how to construct a homemade bomb like ones that have been used in school shootings. The counter-argument that I present is that censorship is a good thing when used in moderation.
-Brian Stewart
(Not my true opinion, just a hole in Kinsley’s argument)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a well written piece and i agree with most of the points you make. I like how you point out the weakness of Kinsley's argument, i also feel that there is more to the dilemma of children being exposed to the internet.
Post a Comment