Monday, March 10, 2008
Pike Central Student Captures First Place in State Essay Contest. This Story Includes Essay
Tyler Blackburn, a student from Pike County Central High School, captured first place in the Kentucky Secretary of State Voter Slogan and Essay Contest . The award is sponsored by the University of Kentucky Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and Kentucky Education Association.
Blackburn was presented with a plaque and a check for $ 750.00. from Secretary of State Trey Grayson during a ceremony which was held Monday at the school.
The following is the essay which was submitted by Blackburn.
Throughput the years, election coverage by the media has adapted to popular forms of the day. Candidates, political parties, and local organizations all use media to gain public support. The more popular the media, the more people receive the information. In present time, the most popular media source is the internet. The internet will be taken full advantage of in the up coming ’08 election. Can the public be sure the information they receive from the most unregulated source is accurate, fair and unbiased ? Of course not.
Should Congress pass legislation to monitor and criminalize such information? No, this type of censorship would infringe on the 1st amendment freedoms. People have every right to post their views, so long as it is not considered liable or slander. True there is info online that is intentionally incorrect to sway your ideas. Most credible websites try to protect the online community from such users. Congress should not spend resources on such plans that would require constant web monitoring and, due to the massive amount of incorrect information, constant legal battles. Credible websites and blogs do this themselves.
Websites such as You Tube and Wikipedia have policies that prohibit false , super biased, and criminal content. These websites have editors and administrators that actively police the sites. The administrators ban users and delete posts they find inappropriate. Many of these administrators are just members of the community with increased status and renown who do this work for free. You Tube and Wikipedia are publicly edited as well. On Wikipedia a person can just change incorrect or bias data so long as they don’t vandalize the page. You Tube allows the community to flag posts and videos they find inappropriate to be reviewed by administrators. Sadly not all sites have such filtering , but the majority of credible sites do.
Not only would criminalizing false information be financially unwise, but it would also discourage young voters. Much of today’s youth use the internet just because it is uncensored and unregulated. Lots of young people of voting age use the internet every day. For example many 18 year olds visit You Tube a site that has online coverage of the ‘ 08 candidate debates, constantly. If the typical 18 year old user learned that the government was filtering the website, the user would feel alienated from the site, as if they were viewing only what the government wanted them to. They would react by not viewing that type of information anymore.
However , if congress must act, they should do so by passing something that does not affect online content . Congress would probably be better creating a temporary committee to review popular sites. The committee could then compile a list of acceptable sites that have accurate content. Then make this list available to public access via the internet or other media. This would save resources and prevent alienation of the online community.
Blackburn was presented with a plaque and a check for $ 750.00. from Secretary of State Trey Grayson during a ceremony which was held Monday at the school.
The following is the essay which was submitted by Blackburn.
Throughput the years, election coverage by the media has adapted to popular forms of the day. Candidates, political parties, and local organizations all use media to gain public support. The more popular the media, the more people receive the information. In present time, the most popular media source is the internet. The internet will be taken full advantage of in the up coming ’08 election. Can the public be sure the information they receive from the most unregulated source is accurate, fair and unbiased ? Of course not.
Should Congress pass legislation to monitor and criminalize such information? No, this type of censorship would infringe on the 1st amendment freedoms. People have every right to post their views, so long as it is not considered liable or slander. True there is info online that is intentionally incorrect to sway your ideas. Most credible websites try to protect the online community from such users. Congress should not spend resources on such plans that would require constant web monitoring and, due to the massive amount of incorrect information, constant legal battles. Credible websites and blogs do this themselves.
Websites such as You Tube and Wikipedia have policies that prohibit false , super biased, and criminal content. These websites have editors and administrators that actively police the sites. The administrators ban users and delete posts they find inappropriate. Many of these administrators are just members of the community with increased status and renown who do this work for free. You Tube and Wikipedia are publicly edited as well. On Wikipedia a person can just change incorrect or bias data so long as they don’t vandalize the page. You Tube allows the community to flag posts and videos they find inappropriate to be reviewed by administrators. Sadly not all sites have such filtering , but the majority of credible sites do.
Not only would criminalizing false information be financially unwise, but it would also discourage young voters. Much of today’s youth use the internet just because it is uncensored and unregulated. Lots of young people of voting age use the internet every day. For example many 18 year olds visit You Tube a site that has online coverage of the ‘ 08 candidate debates, constantly. If the typical 18 year old user learned that the government was filtering the website, the user would feel alienated from the site, as if they were viewing only what the government wanted them to. They would react by not viewing that type of information anymore.
However , if congress must act, they should do so by passing something that does not affect online content . Congress would probably be better creating a temporary committee to review popular sites. The committee could then compile a list of acceptable sites that have accurate content. Then make this list available to public access via the internet or other media. This would save resources and prevent alienation of the online community.
# posted by Joe Kinzer @ 4:07 PM 
