Business

Essay Outline Paragraph 1 (Introduction) Background – Recently, Australian Government start to focus on auditing the materials of the internet. During the process, they suppose using filters to block some websites that they thought unsuitable for the public. Identification of problem – The popular using of internet filters has rise a argument between the government and publics. In regard of protecting children from unsuitable materials, the government consider it as the most effective way to achieve. However, some publics think it that has influence their speech and known rights. Thesis statement – This essay will against using internet filters for protecting children, alternatively research better methods to meet the purpose. Paragraph 2 （Body) Topic sentence: The American government amend the laws that in order to force publics using internet filters. a) As the pressure given by American Family Association, many libraries have to built their own system to censor the internet （Minkel 2000, p25). b) The American Library Association would be accused, as it disagree using internet filters. ( Spurlin & Garry 2009, p91) c) In 2000, the Child Pornography and Prevention Act was established (Dobija 2007, p52). Paragraph 3 (Body) Topic sentence: Internet filters can’t wor effectively for blocking unsuitable materials. a) The postal staff adopted filters to check personal emails, which is unethical and assault private rights （Newton 2008-2009, p3). b) The operational principle of Virtual Private Network that is supported by the government may be encouraged crime (Newton 2008-2009, p4). c) The blacklists that set by Australian Communications and Media Authority include some legal websites (Newton 2008-2009, p5). d) In Kansas, some adult viewing unsuitable materials were found in children’s studying websites ( Spurlin & Garry 2009, p95). Paragraph 4 (Body) Topic sentence: The internet censorships would effect the quality of education. a) There are few websites and materials that teachers suggest students to visit had been blocked, like pictures in Google (Minkel 2000, p27). b) In libraries and schools, over half online students who complain about the internet filters that block their educated materials (Johnson 2010, p48). c) With many social networks blocked, students lose the opportunities of building skills and expand their horizontal. (Johnson 2010, p48). Paragraph 5 (Body) Topic sentence: The using internet filters ignore the existence of adults and human rights. a) The media force the libraries to change their management system, which leads to limited information provided for publics( Dobija 2007). b) A case study done by South Dakota public libraries found that fifty percent of adults against using of internet filters ( Spurlin & Garry 2009, p94). c) Many adults complain the filters that slow down the computer, effect using hotmail and other service software ( Spurlin & Garry 2009, p94). d) To get scholarship in University of Southern California, students need to remove a commotion of Congress for preparing a report. Paragraph 6 (Body) Topic sentence: There are several alternative ways better than internet filters to supervise children. a) Schools set the rules for legal surfing internet, which students must fo comply with them (Johnson 2010, p48). c) Parents have the most responsibility for supervising their children (Callister & Burbules 2004, p655). d) The librarians ask students for sign up a contract that guarantee they will legally surfing the internet (Dobija 2007, p52). . Paragraph 7 (conclusion) This paper argued that there are many reasons that internet filters should left up to individuals. These are that the internet filters can’t block illegall websites effective, limited the growth of children, damage human rights and so on. Reference 1. Callister, T.A, JR & Burbules,N.C, 2004, ‘Just give it to me straight: A case against filtering the internet’, Pli Delta Kappn, may, pp.649-655 2. Minkel, W, spring 2000, ‘Dealing with the filtering stigma’, published in School Library Journal, pp25-27. 3. Johnson, D, 2010, ‘Censorship by Omission’, LIBRARY MEDIA CONNECTION, pp.48-49 4. Newton, M, 2008, ‘WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ADULTS'’ POLICY • Vol. 24 No. 4, pp.3-4 5. PATRICK .G, 2009,’ DOES FILTERING STOP THE FLOW OF VALUABLE INFORMATION': A CASE STUDY OF THE CHILDREN’S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT (CIPA) IN SOUTH DAKOTA’ Jan 22 ,2009 Spurlinjan, Vol54 6. Jane. D,2007, ‘The First Amendment Needs New cloths’ American Libraries, September 2001, pp.51-53