Directions:
The format for this persuasion outline is problem – solution. Each main point and sub-point (A.B.C.) should be one sentence unless you are using testimony and quoting someone word for word. Please upload the completed outline to Turnitin by the deadline or you will not earn points. Bring a hard copy of the outline to class on your speaking day with the Turnitin report stapled to the front of the outline.
Persuasion Outline Format
General Purpose: To Persuade
Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience against Internet Censorship in the US
Central Idea: To define Internet Censorship, state the community impact, and two different solutions postulated by experts in the field.
I. Introduction (Does the introduction have all four components? Is each one labeled?)
A. Attention Getter: Your ability to access content will be severely limited if action isn’t taken.
B. Reason to Listen: The United States government is proposing legislation that could alter our freedom for the worse.
C. Speaker Credibility: I have done extensive research and have read numerous peer reviewed articles from experts in the field.
D. Preview of Main Points: I will define Internet Censorship, state the impacts, and then review two solutions.
Transition – This brings us to the problem at hand.
II. The threat of Internet Censorship has continued to plague the US due to efforts to abolish net neutrality, the ideology that prevents internet service providers from blocking certain media.
(Definition) Internet service providers are requesting permission to censor websites they do not approve of by limiting speeds and denying access (Clemmitt, 2006, p.409).
B. (Statistic) “The percentage of the Chinese Internet user population who supports the abstract concept of Internet censorship has continuously increased from about 80% in 2003 to approximately 90% in 2007 [Guo 2003, 2005, 2007].” (
C. (Example) "For example, Canada, Ireland, and Germany have already started to regulate behavior in cyberspace following their own national law [Deibert and Rohozinski 2010; Ng 2013]. Therefore, studying the user experience of censorship in certain regions could have broader implications for the experience of censorship across countries and across different forms of government.”(Wang, Mark, 2015, para. 4)
D. (Expert Testimony) "As Lake (2009) notes, the Web is not nearly the implacable force for freedom that some of its champions have portrayed. The world’s authoritarians have shown just as much aptitude for technology as their discontented citizens” (Warf, 2011, p.3).
E. (Analogy) Clark quotes ACLU legislative counsel Donald Haines as saying, “This is like the federal government deciding that too many people use 'filthy language' in their private letters and phone calls and then proposing to prosecute, fine and imprison anyone who curses,” (Clark, 1995, para. 11)
Transition: The threat of Internet censorship has managed to impact several important communities.
III. Internet censorship has impacted the reach of activists.
(Expert Testimony) “Activists fear that under AOL's proposed rule change, messages from “poorer” users — such as nonprofit charities and political groups — would be blocked while commercial ads would sail through. They also worry that major portions of the Internet would be off-limits to citizens of certain countries” (Clemmitt, 2006, p.411).
(Example) Last year, Telus blocked access not only to a Web site hosted by its own employees’ union but also to more than 700 Web sites hosted outside of its company (Clemmitt, 2006, p.411).
(Expert Testimony) Chester, executive director of the center for digital democracy, argues that the Internet doubles as both a source of entertainment and a platform to discuss important issues—a reality that could potentially threaten democracy if big-money players were the ones to determine what content made it on screen (Clemmitt, 2006, p.411).
Transition: Politics also suffer from Internet censorship.
IV. Politics are skewed with bias from Internet Censorship
(Expert Testimony) Experts agree there is “a link between Internet freedom and democracy.” David Isenberg, a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, describes the “freedom of Internet communication” as being “fundamental to freedom of speech.” Furthermore, “violating it should be anathema to democracy” (Clemmitt, 2006, p.411).
(Expert Testimony) “Whenever you see people from the far left and the far right joining together about something that Congress is getting ready to do . . . what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American,” said Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for Gun Owners of America” (Clemmit, 2006, p.413).
(Example) Clemmitt quotes Wes Boyd, founder of a political group that runs the website MoveOn.org, as saying “I tried to e-mail my brother-in-law about DearAOL.com, and AOL sent me a response as if he had disappeared,”. “When I sent him an e-mail without the DearAOL.com link, it went right through” (Clemmit, 2006, p.411).
V. Experts propose that the government play a limited role in censorship.
A. (Example) “Legislation has been enacted to prohibit spam (through the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act, 2007), unauthorized access to computers (through the Crimes Amendment Act 2003), covert filming (through the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Act, 2006), copyright infringement (through the copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill) and other online offending.” (Wilson, 2008)
B. (Expert Testimony) “Government efforts to influence published or broadcasted news content, either via media control or by inducing self-censorship, represent a threat to the access of important and necessary information to the public and affect the quality of democracy (Schedler, 2002). These attempts to censor content through prohibitive licensing requirements or the outright shuttering of media outlets send strong messages to media personnel when those in power deem (the threat of) news reports unacceptable.”
C. (Example) “Regulatory bodies will have to continue to monitor emerging technology to ensure that their procedures and legal authority are not outstripped by the pace of change.”(Wilson,2008)
Transition: However there is an alternative.
VI. We should avoid making vague categories when it comes to forbidden content.
(Expert Testimony) “Attempts to mandate the removal of vaguely defined “harmful” materials from the Internet (and perhaps the next step—bookstores?) can result only in confusion and perhaps the creation of a new class of forbidden materials that will become even more sought after.” (Neumann, 1999)
(Expert Testimony) "As always in considering risks, there are no easy answers, despite the continual stampede to implement incomplete solutions addressing only tiny portions of particular issues while creating all sorts of new problems.” (Neumann, 1999)
(Expert Testimony) “We must seek constructive alternatives, most likely nontechnological in nature. However, we may ultimately find few, if any, truly workable alrernatives between total freedom of speech (including its dark side) and the speech of draconian censorship." (Neumann, 1999)
Transition There are steps you can take to combat Internet Censorship.
VII. You can sign a petition to uphold Net Neutrality.
A. With enough signatures, the FCC will cease action on Net Neutrality.
1. Gathering more than a half-million signatures on their petition for a Net-neutrality law, groups such as “the Save the Internet” coalition are experiencing rapid growth (Clemmitt, 2006, p.412).
2. The fight against Internet Censorship is an uphill battle and we can’t win unless we push forward.
B. Visit savetheinternet.com to sign a petition to keep net neutrality and call the FCC.
VIII. The freedom of the Internet is up to us.
I have explained Internet Censorship, and how it affects activists and politics. I have also gone over how censorship can be abolished through less government control and better content filtering. You also know how to take action now.
Final Plea – Sign the petition at savetheinternet.com and call the FCC to stop any censorship.
We have the ability to keep the internet a free space where important matters can be voiced.
References
Clark, C. S. (1995, June 30). Regulating the Internet. CQ Researcher, 5, 561-584. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/
Clemmitt, M. (2006, May 12). Controlling the internet. CQ Researcher, 16, 409-432. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/
Clemmitt, M. (2012, April 13). Internet regulation. CQ Researcher, 22, 325-348. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/
Neumann, P., & Weinstein, L. (1999). Risks of content filtering. Association for Computing
Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 42(11), 152.
Wang, D., & Mark, G. (2015). Internet Censorship in China: Examining User Awareness and
Attitudes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(6), 1-22.
Warf, B. (2011). Geographies of global Internet censorship. GeoJournal, 76(1), 1-23.
Wilson, D. (2008). Censorship, new technology and libraries. The Electronic Library,26(5),
695-701.