Taking Away Open Internet would Violate Our Constitutional Rights

A compelling summary of the paper outline A. The Hook - When we got online we thought that we had almost unlimited access rights as a matter of course. In most cases, you can display the website you want at any time. You can watch videos, listen to songs, play podcasts, send e-mails to friends, and find information you can imagine. Anything we want to visit is waiting for us. It is "net neutrality" that makes this possible. B. What is network neutrality? - The user connects to the Internet via cable and satellite owned by the Internet service provider.

In addition to spending a lot of time and money, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech. It is included in the democratic constitution and international law (silence network ...). This will violate the first revision. "The Constitution of the United States of America" ​​declares as follows: "Congress should not establish any law, respect the religious beliefs and prohibit free freedom of speech; therefore, anything on the internet Censorship of forms is also unconstitutional, even though illegal, restrictions on Internet access and content are growing worldwide under various forms of government.

As mentioned in the Review and Internet First Amendment, we have acquired countless freedoms as Americans. These freedoms become constitutional rights and no one can deprive us of our rights. These rights include free speech and press freedom. Many people believe that by combining these two kinds of freedom, you can publish whatever you want on the Internet. However, the first amendment has limitations.

Internet users should be able to implement self-regulation. Because censorship through the Internet violates Article 1 of the Constitutional amendment, the right to freedom of expression is deprived. Since cyberspace is a fairly new concept, the limitation of the Internet by CDA will determine the degree of freedom that we can enjoy on the Internet in the future. Execution of the CDA may lose valuable resources on topics from abortion and AIDS to malaria.

There are constitutional rights, citizens' rights, and legal rights. These rights are assignable rights. Because they are assignable, the authorities can deprive them. That is the source of the highest priority right. However, our Constitution provides special terms for the rights to human life, safety and property rights as defined in Article 14. However, this article depends only on the right to life. As mentioned above, the right to life is the natural right belonging to Article 10 of the FDRE Constitution. Also, according to Articles 10 and 14 of the FDRE Constitution, the right to life is force majeure, it is inherently given not by nation or society. Therefore, it can not be forfeited or transferred. If the question raised here accepts the idea of ​​nontransferable life right as we assert Article 10 and 14 of the FDRE Constitution, how do we promote the death penalty?