Such as, in Reno v. ACLU, the state government of New York tried to pass an act that restricted the transmission of obscene and inappropriate material to protect the community and children from seeing such things. However, the case had made its way up to the Supreme Court in a battle over whether or not this act was in violation of the 1st amendment. The verdict was that the act passed did violate the 1st amendment, saying that it was limiting the freedom of speech. With this in mind, the state government should only be able to view social media and the online activities that people partake in, because if they try to control it they will most likely end up violating some amendment and having the law retracted. So there is no reason to waste the time of creating a law and voting on it just so it is retracted a year later. A benefit with viewing the social media throughout the state, they are able to see what is going on throughout the state, and from there they can do what they can to help that area, all without controlling …show more content…
The government should not end Net Neutrality because it will allow many large companies to be able to analyze and manipulate the data we send and have online through the internet. They would be able to view emails we send, see videos we watched, hear or see phone calls we make or see anything we do on social media. The government should not pass this because it violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution, which states that the United States prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the large companies would be unreasonably searching through all of our private information and data. Therefore, the federal government should have enough control of the internet so that the people are not worried about their information being randomly searched and their privacy