Paul Nipkow created the TV with the intentions of providing an educational tool for the masses. It evolved into a national money making, cultural phenomenon (“Television”). The 1990’s, however, brought the mass installation of the internet across America and other major countries. As the twentieth century winded [wound] down though, mass internet access became possible in numerous additional countries, from China to Iran.

Now the European Union, backed by nations across the world are calling for the US to relinquish its control of the internet to the UN. The United States maintains a control of the mechanisms behind every mouse click through the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The government has the authority to override any action taken by ICANN, however, to date it has never overruled a decision (“Canada backs”).

In my paper I will outline why it is important that the United States continues to retain its power over the internet. Pleasing the EU by implementing a more diverse language can be achieved without spreading the power (“Canada backs”). Also, handing the internet over to UN control runs the risk of censorship beginning to regulate the internet in countries where information is vastly free and easily accessible. I will provide examples of material available in alternative media that is either illegal or regulated online.

Iran, for example, has already taken advantage of a UN cultural-protective treaty to ban a large number of American movies from entering the country. The reasoning behind the move is Iran’s fear of outside ideals and beliefs being spread throughout its country (“Internet in U.N. Hands?”). America has likewise setup regulations and censorships online, although not nearly to the same extent as most countries, particularly China and Iran.

My paper will address the dangers of shifting control to an international body. I will discuss alternative solutions and compromises to the demands of foreign countries. One solution shall be the countries regulating the internet themselves if they seek to block their citizens from certain material. I will show how the United State’s control of the internet provided the greatest feasible alternative that will support free speech guarenteed to American citizens by the First Ammendment.

[I like this topic. I think this is going to make an excellent final project.]

WORKS CITED

Hrab, Neil. “Internet in U.N. Hands?” The Washington Times. 8 Nov. 2005. Lexis-Nexis Universe: General News Topics. Online. 13 Nov. 2005.

Edwards, Steven. “Canada backs continued U.S. control of Internet: Censorship elsewhere feared.” National Post. 15 Nov. 2005. Lexis-Nexis Universe: General News Topics. Online. 13 Nov. 2005.

“Television”. Wikipedia. 15 Nov. 2005. 13 Nov. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television∞>

---

Old Version

Paul Nipkow created the TV with the intentions of providing an educational tool for the masses. It evolved into a money making, cultural phenomenon. As it expanded, the Federal Communication Commission was created as a follow up to the Federal Radio Commission (Wikipedia) .

The FCC took upon the job of regulating what could be said and viewed on the television. Inappropriate language and images are not allowed on NORMAL stations, and only on late night basic cable. When something deemed inappropriate comes across the television, broadcasting companies face large fines from the Commission. (Find some fine #s)
The television is a form of communication and speech, and regulation of any content not specifically deemed illegal by the first amendment is illegal. In my paper I will propose a solution to allow households to regulate content at their discretion.

The beginning of my paper shall explain the increased regulation by the FCC on what is allowed to be shown on television. I will then establish how they have infringed upon the rights guaranteed to the American people by the first amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, my paper will point out the reasoning behind the regulations. With the problem established, I will propose my solution.

I will emphasize that all TV’s, as of January 1, 2000, have V-Chips built into them. My paper will describe V-Chips, how they operate, and how they can be improved to eliminate the need for basic cable regulation.

Clarification of what is still illegal under my new plan will be clarified. The first amendment does not allow false information to be spread with malicious intent, nor anything that would endanger the national security of the country. These points shall be emphasized, so as to not allow terrorists or extremists to take advantage of the new freedom.
I will also speak of the broadcasting companies’ general trend to regulate themselves. With a broader range of programs available with my solution in place, broadcasters will focus placing suitable content onto certain channels and time slots. Audiences shall also become easier to advertise to, as v-chip regulations will create an easier way to predict the age range of the audience. Regulation will even extend to advertisements, as "Lifetime and Oxygen - cable networks largely geared toward a female audience - have raised issues with" a commercial containing partial nudity. "Oxygen said it would only air the ad after midnight and Lifetime has refused to run it at all." (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=1c75e3189827aa6a90958b537e9cd586&_docnum=25&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVA&_md5=20ac2200d9bf60627e0f41182a667b7d∞)


As a final topic, I will discuss the increasing regulation by the government in television and other areas as well. My points will revolve around the forefathers’ original intentions when the amendment was created, and how it is the people’s job to regulate themselves.