Should the government’s have the right to control information which is accessible to the public?

The issue about the government’s right to control information which is accessible to has been widely debated. It is an imperative subject because it poses fundamental litigious questions which may affect the liberty of an individual in their community. Different arguments have been articulated concerning this issue. These include arguments in favor of favor of the status quo, others for the complete control of information, or for absolute liberty of the citizen information, while some are indifferent. This essay will argue on behalf of government limitation of access.

The government has many roles in society. These consist of assurance of public order, promotion of pervasive well being, maximizing individual freedom and intellectual potential, and maintaining cultural traditions. When any of these principles especially that of protecting social order is being violated, the government should have the authority to restrain accessible information to the public if it incites a violent act. Violence the worst human act of cruelty, is defined as “injury or damage by rough or abusive treatment”. Violence has been tolerated and forcefully used throughout history, but over the last two centuries social rejection against it has rapidly spread. If admission to unrestricted information that could provoke aggressive behavior persists, incidents of violence may increase. Such information as child pornography can and has led to vicious crime. A good example of this is the illustrious case of 10 year old, who was kidnapped by a man, sexually assaulted and murdered in her Toronto neighborhood on May 12, 2003 DNA evidence proved that Michael Briere, a software developer committed the crimes. In June 2004, he plead guilty and stated that he had visited child pornography sites on the internet which aroused him to commit the crimes. This type of brutal crime could be prevented if the government had some control and tracking over such accessible public information.

Legislative moderation of liberally obtainable information should be used if it is illegal or may be used in criminal behaviors. The democratic Canadian government has a major responsibility of sustaining social equilibrium. To achieve collective stability, communal rules were developed to enforce fundamental ideologies of peaceful existence. These rules include a diverse range of activities that are outlawed and deemed morally unacceptable. There are numerous illicit activities but the most relevant to this argument is the abuse and exploitation of controlled substances. Unfettered sources of information such as the internet can be a useful tool for the public, but may also be an instrument to commit crimes. Felonies such as the manufacturing of banned drugs such as marijuana, and methamphetamine though rapidly available websites, are becoming an increasing occurrence. This is illustrated by the case of 55 men charged on February 24th, 2003 with selling online drug paraphernalia such as “marijuana bongs”, “crack pipes” and other drug abuse devices. Although the government later discovered and shut down the 11 websites promoting the banned apparatus significant damage had being done. A profit of 50 million dollars in illegal sales had been estimated and countless people had become addicted. Legislative temperance could have prevented such illicit dealings. In conclusion, government should have the authority to control municipal information, or at the very least, to moderate it. Especially when the information could provoke violence, promote illegal abuse of controlled substances. If there is a continuation of unmoderated material, more crimes will probably be committed and societal volatility will be inevitable.