Smith, Sylvia. 2006. "Neutrality' backers fear Net censorship." Journal-Gazette. July 17: page 1.

Smith's article raises other concerns regarding government regulation -- that of restricting price increases for telephone companies, the cable industry and Internet Service Providers. These providers have argued that restricting how much they can raise their fees will compromise the development of the technology, and may pave the way for unequal access to information technology. Cyber-businesses, on the other hand, argue that if Congress takes a "hands-off" approach, these private companies are in a position to monopolize access to the Internet, and to practice censorship.

For consumer advocates and cyber-businesses, the solution should be a government-instituted policy of "net neutrality." Instead of addressing the fee issues, there should be a law specifically stating that service providers could regulate access to the Internet. This policy makes much sense, and is a better focus than the fee issue. An ISP, for example, should not be allowed to bar access to websites that the company deems "objectionable."

The idea of "net neutrality" contributes much to this country's information policy, especially in the light of censorship being practiced in other parts of the world. Recently, for example, Google agreed to censor access to politically provocative sites to consumers in China. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church - the country's largest ISP - regularly blocks access to internet sites that are deemed pornographic or otherwise objectionable. Both companies may argue overriding reasons for their censorship. However, the task of regulating the content that comes into one's own computer should belong to the consumers or, in the case of minors, their parents.

Roach, Ronald. 2004....

"Academic coalition opposes moves to extend wiretap law." Black Issues in Higher Education. May 6. 21:6.
Roach's article takes a look at an ongoing debate regarding the differences between government regulation on regular internet traffic and the kind of access needed for users in higher education. Current legislation gives law enforcement access to communication traffic, under stringent legal conditions and constraints. Librarians and other researchers in higher education, however, argue that access rules should be different for the academe, in order to ensure academic freedom.

This article recognizes the rapid changes in information technology, and many academics and librarians have been quick to use the medium for their own research. While the medium has its advantages, it also brings the researchers outside of the academe, which has a strong tradition of freedom. Such freedom is necessary to ensure that an academic could conduct research without social or political repercussions. For example, severe constraints on research and development would occur if a researcher could face jail time or worse for their beliefs. Similar issues could plague a writer who is crafting a novel that could be deemed "subversive," such as George Orwell's 1984.

Given these larger issues, the coalitions of universities, librarians and researchers are right in asking Congress to recognize their different needs. Law enforcement officials certainly have a legitimate need for wiretaps and other methods of monitoring communications traffic. However, the perceived needs to strengthen national security should not come at the expense of rights that this country already holds dear - those of freedom of expression, freedom of information and, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once stated, "the right to be let alone."