(2).
.
Almost all of those who determine which sites should be banned or allowed are lawyers. The lawyers that can distinguish the bad and the good web sites depend on the capability of the lawful system; therefore, they should be allowed to determine which sites should be banned and which ones should be permitted. It is illogical to say that the juries can determine what is right or wrong in all degrees of murder but cannot determine which site is good and which site is bad. (Censorship Is Essential to an Open Society, 3) In short, there are people that have ability to making decision to distinguish good or bad web pages. .
No one can determine which web sites should be banned, is the main part being considered by the internet censorship opponents. For instance, today, the human slavery or women's right are treated in a different way to in which that were in the past. (Censorship Is Harmful to an Open Society, 2) Nobody can say tomorrow everybody respects the human's right. Not only good ideas but also bad ideas are personal ones; as a result, nobody can decide which web sites are good or bad for other people. For example, child pornography is one the parts of the internet that parents are afraid of. .
Raymond Smith refers to a cartoon that recently appeared in the newspapers. Through the doorway, a mother calls out to her teenager-who is surrounded by high-tech equipment-"I hope you're not watching sex stuff on the Internet!" To which her son replies, "Naw, I'm getting it on TV!" (208).
In summary, there is nobody having authority to decide instead of all the people around the world.
Moreover, after thousand years good speech has not been able to prevail over the evil speech. D. Brandeis is quoted as saying in the Censorship is Essential to an Open Society:.
"The fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones" (3) .
The article goes on to dispute this by arguing that if this idea was right, because evil speech has been attacked for a thousand years, evil speech would have been conquered long time ago.
