Monitoring Internet Privacy

Words: 535
Pages: 3

The United States government has the right to monitor internet content, but not the right to abridge it in a meaningful way for most cases. This is a simple free speech issue, and has been roundly supported by SCOTUS as well. Despite the fact that right to privacy is not explicitly discussed in the constitution, rulings have made it clear. In 1965, Griswald vs. Connecticut put forth the idea that states have no right to invade into the privacy of the home, specifically the marital bedroom and use of contraception but that is not the only use it has. This case basically states that the U.S. Gov. cannot, even for the internet, abridge anything on the internet that is confined to the home, thus anything that has a strictly private nature. However, …show more content…
has a right to monitor and confine. This has been shown in a number of Circuit of Appeals cases concerning schools and threats of internet violence. They have repeatedly ruled in favor of the schools in these cases. In my opinion, thus, the United States has the power to monitor, and should monitor, any cases where clear and present danger is applicable. School Bullying and terroristic threats should be monitored within our government. Every possible threat should be monitored, but only when they are determined to be threats. The cases about monitoring simple advocates of free speech are wrong. It's that clear and simple. Only threats that are solid and determined should be monitored, since they present a clear and present danger for our national security. In the end, a small abridging of constitutional rights is worth it for any number of securities stopped within our national borders. In the end, that's all that really matters. Safety, and non-prosecution for private acts, must be maintained above all else. That is what matters for the national government, all defined by the previous court cases enumerated above in this essay. Plus the general constitutional powers as