In the past, new forms of media have been immediately subjected to moral debates. Radio, film and Television were all instantly scrutinized for the ethical implications. Internet ethics has only recently begun to be heavily debated because the original users of the internet, highly educated and perhaps therefor, tolerant to different ideas an inherently against government control and regulation (which usually follows ethical debates).
The internet is also different in that it has no owner, no producer, no authority. The internet belongs to the world wide world, encompassing communities and networks of people in Texas and Abu-Dabi. Inherently, it is all encompassing, featuring all nationalities and backgrounds.
One can find anything on the internet But that does that mean that the internet should be law-less? Do the laws against child-pornography, hate-crimes and abuse become immune on-line? I don't think so, but I also don't think that we have to invent new ways to approach ethical debates. Crimes committed by means on-line or otherwise should have the same penalties as all other crimes, because the internet can't be regulated, people must adhere to the same international code of ethics as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations), and violations to Human Rights should be punished.
The Declaration of Human Rights
Check out Internet Ethics: Oxymoron or Orthodoxy?
No comments:
Post a Comment