speech on the internet

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Speech on The Internet

Long Speech on the Internet

A heartfelt welcome to all of you present. I want to take this opportunity and share a few thoughts with you about the internet.

The ushering of the 21st century has brought about a host of changes, the advent of the internet being one of them. To put it in simpler terms, the internet is a virtual network that allows connections on a global scale by means of the world wide web. The internet has ushered in an era of revolution allowing fast connectivity and a whirlpool of resources and information at one’s disposal. The internet has, in true meaning, made the world smaller on a global scale.

As the new millennium progressed, the internet became an indispensable tool. The ease of finding information, the ability to connect instantly became so ingrained in people that imagining a life without the internet seems nearly impossible these days. The internet has brought about many benefits. With a boom in the technological sector, it has created a host of jobs in various fields. Work which in the pre-internet era would require a significant amount of time could be done within a matter of hours. People nowadays no longer have to wait for days or months to be able to communicate with someone. Facilities such as banking, financial transactions, purchasing, have all been made streamlined owing to the internet.

As seen in recent years, the educational sector has also witnessed a major shift, be it the availability of resources or in delivering information, all due to the use of the internet. The vast repository of information available on the internet has enabled the development of quicker and more efficient learning modules and outcomes. Online learning has become the new norm these days. Moreover, the use of the internet has allowed for a more holistic approach to learning with learners now able to audio-visualize as they gather new knowledge and information. The internet, in short, has become a new learning tool.

We must, however, be aware of the fact that with its many advantages, the internet has also brought about a host of disadvantages. The personal information out there on the internet always remains at the risk of falling into the wrong hands. Cybercrimes are a common occurrence these days, ranging from the hacking of personal records for harming someone in particular to the commitment of major banking frauds.

In my concluding remarks, I would like to say that the internet has become both the boon and bane of our existence. To quote, ‘the internet is a necessary evil’. So it is up to us how we make the most out of it all, ensuring that no other individual is adversely affected because of the same. It also remains our responsibility to safeguard our information to the maximum extent possible and prevent it from being misused in any way. As we make significant strides in the advancement of civilization, it is important that we make use of the internet for the betterment of society as a whole.

Short Speech

Speech on the internet.

A warm welcome to all the esteemed ladies and gentlemen. I would like to share a few words on the topic of the internet.

The Internet has become the grain of our existence in the modern-day world. From studies to pharmaceuticals, to groceries to banking, we have the privilege of having the entire world at our fingertips, thanks to the internet. People across the globe are connected today by means of what is known as the world wide web, or popularly, the internet. Gone are the days when people had to wait for hours, weeks or even months to hear from their beloved ones. With the advent of the internet, we can now connect to someone within a matter of minutes.

The era of the internet ushered in with the dawn of the new millennium. What started with the big metropolitan cities, is not available in even the remotest villages. The internet has brought about a revolution in several industrial sectors. In recent years, the education industry also saw a major shift owing to the prevalence of the internet. However, with everything good going on, the usage of the internet has also brought along the ill effects. Practices such as cybercrimes, online fraudulent activity, hacking, etc. are on the rise. Such has been the extent of the ill-effects of the internet that people had to lose their lives as well.

So, as we move forward with the use of the internet in our day-to-day lives, we must make sure to remain vigilant and safe in order to not fall prey or indulge in any sort of harmful practices. The Internet can prove to be a great boon if used judiciously.

10 Lines Speech

Hello to everyone present. Today, I am going to present a speech on the internet.

The internet, as we all know, is a vast network that connects people across the world. The Internet allows us to have a wide range of information on any topic with just a simple click. In addition to information, the internet also helps us to communicate with people across the world. The internet serves as the connecting point for millions of devices by means of the world wide web. The Internet has proven to be very beneficial in our daily lives. Be it obtaining knowledge or information, purchasing commodities, or making payments, everything has become much simpler with the internet. However, there are also various ill-effects of the internet taking place by means of online fraud, loss of personal information, etc.

To conclude, I would like to say that the internet has both its advantages and disadvantages. It is up to us to make the best of it and use it wisely.

Hello everyone.

Today I am here to present my views on the internet. The Internet today has become a necessity. Only a few years ago, it was a luxury only a few could afford. But with the development of technology, the internet has been made accessible and feasible to everyone in society. With the worldwide web(WWW) being its biggest service, it is now connecting millions of people all over the world. The Internet is one of the crucial inventions of humankind. The development of the internet has led to recent media replacing traditional newspapers and journalism. It has led to instant messaging and video communication replacing postcards and manually written letters.

Traditional cinema has been replaced by OTT platforms serving entertainment at the comfort of one’s house. The Internet has replaced offline stores as well. With all the development that has happened over the years due to the invention of the internet, One cannot simply assume that there are no ill effects of it.

The whole world is connected via the internet. It is a good thing, it also means that quality time with friends and family in person holds less value, and there is no escape from work.

The Internet is addictive, and if there are no proper boundaries for using it, It can cause ill effects on the human mind as well as other areas of life. Lack of sleep is a common problem seen in students today. Social media and the rise of video platforms like youtube have only made it difficult to restrict the use of the internet.

I do want to shed some light on the advantages of the internet. The internet is by far the most amazing invention.

Overflow of Information

The Internet is the sea of abundant information. The information that has been searched for is just one google search away. There is a tonne of resources available for anything that is needed. Be it any query or a recipe or a course of photography, one can always find a solution to the internet.

Education for All

In the era of online learning, not only are the students benefited by the internet, but also the people who do not have the time to attend classes in person. So many housewives have turned to their hobbies by joining online classes, The students can now get viable information on any subject by surfing the internet. The Internet comes in handy when one needs to know things fast, and now. Education is accessible for all now and this is the boon of the internet. Teachers can teach via online portals no matter where they are in the world. They can also upload pre-recorded videos online so that the students can watch them at their convenience. One can learn any skill they wish to learn and the internet has at least one or two resources or courses regarding the same.

Online Services

With the online world dominating the internet, Every domain has come under the influence of it, even the services industry as well. With just one click one can order restaurant-cooked food, buy new clothes and book a spa appointment, and also consult a doctor. This convenience provided by the internet has helped humans do more things and not waste time. The best examples include Flipkart, Amazon, and Zomato. Buying and ordering things online has become easy and accessible to all. Even emails can be delivered with just one click, and money transfers can be done on the computers and one need not visit the bank for it.

Social Media

The one thing that has to be highlighted while talking about the internet is the importance of social media.

Social media’s rapid growth has made us feel connected. We are just one click away from talking to the person staying across the globe. Platforms like Youtube, Instagram, Facebook let you share your story, and ideas over the internet free of cost. They bring forth the creativity of humans.

Online Business

The trend of online businesses is not just a trend anymore, they are replacing the traditional business run from the brick and mortar stores. Every business right now has a website and an online store. It is so convenient to market the business when it has a social media presence. The business can make a name globally and reach more target audiences, and this will in turn help in making profits.

The internet has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. Although, it is upon the user to be cautious, to not overindulge on the internet. For everything is turned into a disadvantage when not done with precautions. Setting healthy boundaries around the usage of the internet can be super beneficial in the long term.

Speech on Internet for Students and Children

Speech on Internet

Very good morning to all. Today, I am here to present a speech on internet. Someone has rightly said that the world is a small place. With the advent of the internet, this saying seems realistic. The internet has really bought the world together and the distance between two persons is really not a distance today. We all know about the technological advancements happening in the world. One of the major attributes of technological advancement is the internet. Today the internet is available easily to many individuals. Also, it is rapidly changing the way we work, travel, educate and entertain.

Source: pixabay.com

Evolution of Internet

Many of you are aware of what the internet facility is. Still, I would like to highlight the aspects of the internet. The internet is a facility wherein two gadget screens are connected through signals. Thus, through this medium, the information can be exchanged between two gadgets.

The history of the internet dates back to 40 years ago with its first use in the United States of America and the inventor of the internet was Robert E.Kahn and Vint Cerf. Earlier the internet was only used to send emails between two computers. Today it has reached all distant parts of the globe with more than 1.5 million users. They use the internet for exchange of information, entertainment, money exchanges, etc.

Get the Huge list of 100+ Speech Topics here

Pros of the Internet

The internet facility has many advantages and it has proved to be a milestone in the technical advancement of humankind. It allows users to exchange and communicate information. Two users who are sitting in distant corners of the world can easily communicate through mails, chats, and video conferencing by using the internet.

It provides information of all kinds to its users. Also, it provides entertainment by offering services of watching movies, listening to music, playing a game. Various day to day activities such as travel ticket bookings, banking facilities, shopping, etc. can be easily done through the internet.

Nowadays the internet also offers various dating websites and matrimonial websites by which one can find their prospective soul mate.

The Internet also offers a facility to its users where they can earn online by means of blogs and video blogs. These are some of the major benefits of the internet has a dark side also.

Cons of the Internet

Many a number of people misuse information for fraud and illegal works. Due to excessive use of the internet in the wrong hands, a number of cybercrimes are happening which is affecting the trust of the people on the internet.

Abuse over social media is also prevailing through the internet wherein people of negative mentality abuse other people on the basis of caste, race, color, appearance, etc. Addiction to online games is one of the major problems of parents today as children get addicted to online games and avoid their studies and outdoor activities.

The internet has nowadays become such an important part of the life of the people that it is hardly possible to spend even a day without using the internet. Thus after seeing the negatives of the internet, it is not practically possible to completely avoid the internet. However, we can put a timeline or restriction on its usage especially to children.

The parents and teachers can monitor the online activities of their children and guide them on the proper use of the internet. We should also educate and aware people of online cybercrime and fraud. Thus through proper precautions and adopting safety measures the internet can prove to be a boon for the development of human society.

Read Essays for Students and Children here !

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Speech for Students

Speech on India for Students and Children
Speech on Mother for Students and Children
Speech on Air Pollution for Students and Children
Speech about Life for Students and Children
Speech on Disaster Management for Students and Children
Speech on Generation Gap for Students and Children
Speech on Indian Culture for Students and Children
Speech on Sports for Students and Children
Speech on Water for Students and Children

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

this was very helpful it saved my life i got this at the correct time very nice and helpful

This Helped Me With My Speech!!!

I can give it 100 stars for the speech it is amazing i love it.

Its amazing!!

Great !!!! It is an advanced definition and detail about Pollution. The word limit is also sufficient. It helped me a lot.

This is very good

Very helpful in my speech

Oh my god, this saved my life. You can just copy and paste it and change a few words. I would give this 4 out of 5 stars, because I had to research a few words. But my teacher didn’t know about this website, so amazing.

Tomorrow is my exam . This is Very helpfull

It’s really very helpful

yah it’s is very cool and helpful for me… a lot of 👍👍👍

Very much helpful and its well crafted and expressed. Thumb’s up!!!

wow so amazing it helped me that one of environment infact i was given a certificate

check it out travel and tourism voucher

thank you very much

Download the App

Ethics & Leadership
Fact-Checking
Media Literacy
The Craig Newmark Center
Reporting & Editing
Ethics & Trust
Tech & Tools
Business & Work
Educators & Students
Training Catalog
Custom Teaching
For ACES Members
All Categories
Broadcast & Visual Journalism
Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
In-newsroom
Memphis, Tenn.
Minneapolis, Minn.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Washington, D.C.
Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
Ethics & Trust Articles
Get Ethics Advice
Fact-Checking Articles
IFCN Grants
International Fact-Checking Day
Teen Fact-Checking Network
International
Media Literacy Training
MediaWise Resources
Ambassadors
MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

What you need to know about Section 230, the ‘most important law protecting internet speech’

Section 230 grants broad legal protections to websites that host user-generated content, like facebook and google..

A law credited with birthing the internet — and with spurring misinformation — has drawn bipartisan ire from lawmakers who are vowing to change it.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability for much of what its users post.

Both Democrats and Republicans point to Section 230 as a law that gives too much protection to companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon and Google — with different reasons.

Former President Donald Trump wanted changes to Section 230 and vetoed a military spending bill in December because it didn’t include them. President Joe Biden has said that he’d be in favor of revoking the provision altogether. Biden’s pick for commerce secretary said she will pursue changes to Section 230 if confirmed.

There are several bills in Congress that would repeal Section 230 or amend its scope in order to limit the power of the platforms. In response, even tech companies have called for revising a law they say is outdated.

“In the offline world, it’s not just the person who pulls the trigger, or makes the threat or causes the damage — we hold a lot of people accountable,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami. “Section 230 and the way it’s been interpreted essentially says none of those rules apply here.”

How did Section 230 come to be, and how could potential reforms affect the internet? We consulted the law and its experts to find out. (Have a question we didn’t answer here? Send it to [email protected] .)

What is Section 230?

Donna Rice Hughes, of the anti-pornography organization Enough is Enough, meets reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington Wednesday, March 19, 1997, after the court heard arguments challenging the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The court, in its first look at free speech on the Internet, was asked to uphold a law that made it a crime to put indecent words or pictures online where children can find them. They struck it down. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Congress passed the Communications Decency Act as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 , when an increasing number of Americans started to use the internet. Its original purpose was to prohibit making “indecent” or “patently offensive” material available to children.

In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. But one of its provisions survived and, ironically, laid the groundwork for protecting online speech.

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

That provision, grounded in the language of First Amendment law, grants broad legal protections to websites that host user-generated content. It essentially means they can’t be sued for libel or defamation for user posts. Section 230 is especially important to social media platforms, but it also protects news sites that allow reader comments or auction sites that let users sell products or services.

RELATED TRAINING: Pay Attention: Legal Issues and Your Media Company

“Section 230 is understood primarily as a reaction to state court cases threatening to hold online service providers liable for (possible) libels committed by their users,” said Tejas Narechania, an assistant law professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

Section 230 changed that. For example, if a Facebook user publishes something defamatory, Facebook itself can’t be sued for defamation, but the post’s original author can be. That’s different from publishers like the New York Times, which can be held liable for content they publish — even if they didn’t originate the offending claim.

There are some exceptions in Section 230, including for copyright infringement and violations of federal and state law. But in general, the provision grants social media platforms far more leeway than other industries in the U.S.

Why does it matter?

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the authors of Section 230, in 2021. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)

Section 230 is the reason that you can post photos on Instagram, find search results on Google and list items on eBay. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group, calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.”

Section 230 is generally considered to be speech-protective, meaning that it allows for more content rather than less on internet platforms. That objective was baked into the law.

In crafting Section 230, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., “both recognized that the internet had the potential to create a new industry,” wrote Jeff Kosseff in “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet .”

“Section 230, they hoped, would allow technology companies to freely innovate and create open platforms for user content,” Kosseff wrote. “Shielding internet companies from regulation and lawsuits would encourage investment and growth, they thought.”

Wyden and Cox were right — today, American tech platforms like Facebook and Google have billions of users and are among the wealthiest companies in the world. But they’ve also become vehicles for disinformation and hate speech , in part because Section 230 left it up to the platforms themselves to decide how to moderate content.

Until relatively recently, most companies took a light touch to moderation of content that’s not illegal, but still problematic. (PolitiFact, for example, participates in programs run by Facebook and TikTok to fight misinformation. )

“You don’t have to devote any resources to make your products and services safe or less harmful — you can solely go towards profit-making,” said Franks, the law professor. “Section 230 has gone way past the idea of gentle nudges toward moderation, towards essentially it doesn’t matter if you moderate or not.”

Without Section 230, tech companies would be forced to think about their legal liability in an entirely different way.

“Without Section 230, companies could be sued for their users’ blog posts, social media ramblings of homemade online videos,” Kosseff wrote. “The mere prospect of such lawsuits would force websites and online service providers to reduce or entirely prohibit user-generated content.”

Has the law changed?

The law has changed a little bit since 1996.

Section 230’s first major challenge came in 1997, when America Online was sued for failing to remove libelous ads that erroneously connected a man’s phone number to the Oklahoma City bombing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of AOL, citing Section 230.

“That’s the case that basically set out very expansive protection,” said Olivier Sylvain, a law professor at Fordham University. “It held that even when an intermediary, AOL in this case, knows about unlawful content … it still is not obliged under law to take that stuff down.”

That’s different from how the First Amendment treats other distributors, such as booksellers. But the legal protections aren’t limitless.

In 2008, the Ninth Circuit appeals court ruled that Roommates.com could not claim immunity from anti-discrimination laws for requiring users to choose the preferred traits of potential roommates. Section 230 was further weakened in 2018 when Trump signed a package of bills aimed at limiting online human trafficking.

The package created an exception that held websites liable for ads for prostitution. As a result, Craigslist shut down its section for personal ads and certain Reddit groups were banned .

What reforms are being considered?

Sen. Joshua Hawley (R-Mo.) is one of several senators who has introduced a bill to modify or repeal Section 230. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP)

In 2020, following a Trump executive order on “preventing online censorship,” the Justice Department published a review of Section 230. In it, the department recommended that Congress revise the law to include carve-outs for “egregious content” related to child abuse, terrorism and cyber-stalking. The review also proposed revoking Section 230 immunity in cases where a platform had “actual knowledge or notice” that a piece of content was unlawful.

The Justice Department review came out the same day that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill that would require companies to revise their terms of service to include a “duty of good faith” and more transparency about their moderation policies. A flurry of other Republican-led efforts came in January after Twitter banned Trump from its platform. Some proposals would make Section 230 protections conditional, while others would repeal the provision altogether.

Democrats have instead focused on reforming Section 230 to hold platforms accountable for harmful content like hate speech, targeted harassment and drug dealing . One proposal would require platforms to explain their moderation practices and to produce quarterly reports on content takedowns. The Senate Democrats’ SAFE Tech Act would revoke legal protections for platforms where payments are involved.

That last proposal is aimed at reining in online advertising abuses, but critics say even small changes to Section 230 could have unintended consequences for free speech on the internet. Still, experts say it’s time for change.

“Section 230 is a statute — it is not a constitutional norm, it’s not free speech — and it was written at a time when people were worried about electronic bulletin boards and newsgroups. They were not thinking about amplification, recommendations and targeted advertising,” Sylvain said. “Most people agree that the world in 1996 is not the world in 2021.”

This article was originally published by PolitiFact , which is part of the Poynter Institute. It is republished here with permission. See the sources for these facts checks here and more of their fact-checks here .

More about Section 230

What journalists should know about Communications Decency Act Section 230
Opinion: It’s time to repeal the law that gives social media sites immunity for anything their users post
Americans want some online misinformation removed, but aren’t sure who should do it

Opinion | Sally Buzbee steps down as executive editor of The Washington Post

Buzbee joined the Post in 2021 after a career at The Associated Press. She was the first female editor of the Post, which was founded in 1877.

What do horse race journalists think of ‘horse race journalism’?

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, breathless reporting of incremental polling has already begun.

Fact-check: Trump’s speech at Trump Tower after his New York felony conviction

Former President Donald Trump lashed out about his Manhattan trial and sought to defend his record and his character

IFCN announces new grant opportunity supported by Meta to combat AI-generated misinformation on WhatsApp

Grantees will have an opportunity to innovate with WhatsApp functionality

Opinion | Trump guilty on all counts: breaking down the media coverage of the historic trial

Despite the lack of cameras in the courtroom, the on-screen guilty counters and reports from the trial painted a vivid picture of a historic moment.

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

CBSE Class 10th
CBSE Class 12th
UP Board 10th
UP Board 12th
Bihar Board 10th
Bihar Board 12th
Top Schools in India
Top Schools in Delhi
Top Schools in Mumbai
Top Schools in Chennai
Top Schools in Hyderabad
Top Schools in Kolkata
Top Schools in Pune
Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

JEE Main Knockout April
Free Sample Papers
Free Ebooks
NCERT Notes
NCERT Syllabus
NCERT Books
RD Sharma Solutions
Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
NCERT Solutions
NCERT Solutions for Class 12
NCERT Solutions for Class 11
NCERT solutions for Class 10
NCERT solutions for Class 9
NCERT solutions for Class 8
NCERT Solutions for Class 7
JEE Main 2024
MHT CET 2024
JEE Advanced 2024
BITSAT 2024
View All Engineering Exams
Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
Top Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
Top IITs in India
Top NITs in India
Top IIITs in India
JEE Main College Predictor
JEE Main Rank Predictor
MHT CET College Predictor
AP EAMCET College Predictor
GATE College Predictor
KCET College Predictor
JEE Advanced College Predictor
View All College Predictors
JEE Advanced Cutoff
JEE Main Cutoff
JEE Advanced Answer Key
JEE Advanced Result
Download E-Books and Sample Papers
Compare Colleges
B.Tech College Applications
KCET Result
MAH MBA CET Exam
View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

MBA College Admissions
MBA Colleges in India
Top IIMs Colleges in India
Top Online MBA Colleges in India
MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
BBA Colleges in India
XAT College Predictor 2024
SNAP College Predictor
NMAT College Predictor
MAT College Predictor 2024
CMAT College Predictor 2024
CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
CAT 2023 College Predictor
CMAT 2024 Answer Key
TS ICET 2024 Hall Ticket
CMAT Result 2024
MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
Download Helpful Ebooks
List of Popular Branches
QnA - Get answers to your doubts
IIM Fees Structure
AIIMS Nursing
Top Medical Colleges in India
Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
Medical Colleges accepting NEET
List of Medical Colleges in India
List of AIIMS Colleges In India
Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
NEET College Predictor
NEET PG College Predictor
NEET MDS College Predictor
NEET Rank Predictor
DNB PDCET College Predictor
NEET Result 2024
NEET Asnwer Key 2024
NEET Cut off
NEET Online Preparation
Download Helpful E-books
Colleges Accepting Admissions
Top Law Colleges in India
Law College Accepting CLAT Score
List of Law Colleges in India
Top Law Colleges in Delhi
Top NLUs Colleges in India
Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

CLAT College Predictor
MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
AILET College Predictor
Sample Papers
Compare Law Collages
Careers360 Youtube Channel
CLAT Syllabus 2025
CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
NID DAT Exam
Pearl Academy Exam

Predictors & Articles

NIFT College Predictor
UCEED College Predictor
NID DAT College Predictor
NID DAT Syllabus 2025
NID DAT 2025
Design Colleges in India
Top NIFT Colleges in India
Fashion Design Colleges in India
Top Interior Design Colleges in India
Top Graphic Designing Colleges in India
Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
Top Interior Design Colleges in Bangalore
NIFT Result 2024
NIFT Fees Structure
NIFT Syllabus 2025
Free Design E-books
List of Branches
Careers360 Youtube channel
IPU CET BJMC
JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
IIMC Entrance Exam
Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
CA Intermediate
CA Foundation
CS Executive
CS Professional
Difference between CA and CS
Difference between CA and CMA
CA Full form
CMA Full form
CS Full form
CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
Master of Commerce (M.Com)
Company Secretary
Cost Accountant
Charted Accountant
Credit Manager
Financial Advisor
Top Commerce Colleges in India
Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
Top B.Com Colleges in India
IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
MCA Colleges in India
BCA Colleges in India

Diploma Colleges

Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
UPSC IAS 2024
SSC CGL 2024
IBPS RRB 2024
Previous Year Sample Papers
Free Competition E-books
Sarkari Result
QnA- Get your doubts answered
UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

NDA Application Form 2024
UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
CDS Application Form 2024
CTET Admit card 2024
HP TET Result 2023
SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
UPTET Notification 2024
SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

SSC CHSL 2024
UP PCS 2024
UGC NET 2024
RRB NTPC 2024
IBPS PO 2024
IBPS Clerk 2024
IBPS SO 2024
Top University in USA
Top University in Canada
Top University in Ireland
Top Universities in UK
Top Universities in Australia
Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

Study in USA
Study in UK
Study in Canada
Study in Australia
Study in Ireland
Study in Germany
Study in China
Study in Europe

Student Visas

Student Visa Canada
Student Visa UK
Student Visa USA
Student Visa Australia
Student Visa Germany
Student Visa New Zealand
Student Visa Ireland
CUET PG 2024
IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
DU Admission 2024
UP B.Ed JEE 2024
LPU NEST 2024
IIT JAM 2024
IGNOU Online Admission 2024
Universities in India
Top Universities in India 2024
Top Colleges in India
Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Bihar
Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
Central Universities in India
CUET DU Cut off 2024
IGNOU Date Sheet
CUET DU CSAS Portal 2024
CUET Response Sheet 2024
CUET Result 2024
CUET Participating Universities 2024
CUET Previous Year Question Paper
CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
E-Books and Sample Papers
CUET Exam Pattern 2024
CUET Exam Date 2024
CUET Cut Off 2024
CUET Exam Analysis 2024
IGNOU Exam Form 2024
CUET PG Counselling 2024
CUET Answer Key 2024

Engineering Preparation

Knockout JEE Main 2024
Test Series JEE Main 2024
JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

Knockout NEET 2024
Test Series NEET 2024
Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

JEE Main One Month Course
NEET One Month Course
IBSAT Free Mock Tests
IIT JEE Foundation Course
Knockout BITSAT 2024
Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

IT & Software Certification Courses
Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
Programming And Development Certification Courses
Business and Management Certification Courses
Marketing Certification Courses
Health and Fitness Certification Courses
Design Certification Courses

Specializations

Digital Marketing Certification Courses
Cyber Security Certification Courses
Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
Business Analytics Certification Courses
Data Science Certification Courses
Cloud Computing Certification Courses
Machine Learning Certification Courses
View All Certification Courses
UG Degree Courses
PG Degree Courses
Short Term Courses
Free Courses
Online Degrees and Diplomas
Compare Courses

Top Providers

Coursera Courses
Udemy Courses
Edx Courses
Swayam Courses
upGrad Courses
Simplilearn Courses
Great Learning Courses

Speech On Internet - 10 Lines, Short and Long Speech

The Internet is regarded as one of the greatest human inventions. The Internet has changed the way people work and live for the better. It assisted us in reducing distance, breaking down all human-made barriers, and bringing the world to our fingertips. The Internet has become a worldwide medium.

10- Lines Speech On The Internet

The Internet is a network of networks that connects everyone via satellite, telephone lines, and optical fibre connections.

With a single click, you can access a world of information.

The Internet connects millions of computers to the worldwide electronic community.

The Internet assists us in gathering information by storing it on servers known as websites.

We may readily read books online by visiting libraries.

The Internet is in charge of delivering information to our doorstep. All we need is a phone or a laptop with Internet access.

With the assistance of the Internet, any financial transactions and banking can be sent and received.

But, for all of its virtues, the Internet has its drawbacks. Data and personal information leakage are one of the drawbacks.

Malicious information on social media can cause disruptions.

Online financial fraud is a common occurrence that we are unaware of.

Speech On Internet - 10 Lines, Short and Long Speech

Short Speech On the Internet

Nobody among us is unfamiliar with the Internet. It was invented 40 years ago by Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf and was initially used to send emails in the United States. Today, the world has 3.5 billion users, and you are one of them. When it comes to internet usage, it has yet to be explored.

How Internet Has Changed The World

We can now book our trip tickets online, eliminating the need to stand in line. We can shop from many possibilities while sitting at home; we don't need to go to the market. We can also seek doctors' advice, who are only a click away. Even students nowadays rely only on online resources to learn. Not only that, but the Internet has entirely revolutionised the way we used to live. You will all agree that it has made our lives easier and more comfortable.

We all know, however, that a coin has two sides, one good and one terrible. Illegal activities, fraud, and cybercrime are expanding daily. People are spending time on the Internet rather than using it productively. People have begun to live a virtual life without awareness of the real world. Children spend more time playing online games than participating in physical activities.

The Internet is one of humanity's greatest inventions that can be used for the global development of humankind.

Long Speech On the Internet

The Internet has connected the world and that distance between people is no longer an issue. The Internet is one of the most important aspects of technological progress occurring all around the world. It is transforming how people work, educate themselves, travel, and entertain themselves, and it is easily accessible to many people.

The Internet's function is to connect two or more gadget screens that may communicate via signals, allowing information to be transmitted through this medium. The Internet was initially used forty years ago in the United States of America. Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf created the Internet. Initially, the Internet was used to send emails between two computers, but it has already successfully touched every corner of the globe.

Advantages Of Internet

The Internet has numerous benefits and has proven to be a valuable contribution to humankind's technological advancement.

It allows users to connect with their relatives even if they are far away, and you can instantly connect with them via chats, video conferencing, and emails.

It allows users to collect various types of information and offers moving services such as watching movies, playing games, and listening to music.

Online banking, airline ticket booking, shopping, and other services are among the benefits of the Internet.

Disadvantages Of Internet

The use of the Internet for fraud and illicit purposes is rising daily.

The rate of cybercrime is rapidly increasing, eroding people's trust in the Internet, primarily due to the misuse of the Internet.

People attack others on social networking sites based on caste, colour, race, attractiveness, etc. One concern parents encounter is their children being addicted to computer gaming, avoiding schoolwork, and avoiding outside activities.

How To Be Careful Over The Internet

The Internet plays an essential role in people's daily lives, and it is nearly impossible for us to go a day without it. So, even though we know the Internet's detrimental effects, we cannot avoid it. So, we can set a time limit for its use, primarily for minors.

Parents and teachers must monitor and guide children on proper Internet usage. Educating and alerting people about online fraud and cybercrime is part of our responsibilities, and there are severe repercussions for internet fraud. As a result, with adequate understanding and prudence, the Internet can be a blessing to human society's growth.

Around 2006, I was 5, and my mum showed me Google for the first time. She connected to the Internet and demonstrated what Google is. I was delighted and enthusiastic about the unlimited possibilities, but Google didn't have any "Did you mean" tabs back then, and my spelling was terrible, so I had to ask my mother to search for me. I recall the first thing I asked my Mom to Google was "How are Diamonds formed?" and forcing her to read it to me. That was my first experience when I encountered the Internet.

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

ALLEN Digital Scholarship Admission Test (ADSAT)

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Physics formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

PW JEE Coaching

Enrol in PW Vidyapeeth center for JEE coaching

PW NEET Coaching

Enrol in PW Vidyapeeth center for NEET coaching

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Certifications

We Appeared in

ENCYCLOPEDIA
IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Issues » Issues Related to Speech, Press, Assembly, or Petition » Internet

Written by Ronald Kahn, published on July 30, 2023 , last updated on February 18, 2024

Yi Li uses a computer terminal at the New York Public Library to access the Internet, Wednesday, June 12, 1996. The graduate student from Taiwan supports the federal court decision issued in Philadelphia on Wednesday that bans government censorship of the Internet. Yi Li fears that government control of the Internet could be used by authoritarians to control or confine people. "We can use the (free flow of) information to unite the world," she said. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, reprinted with permission from The Associated Press)

The Supreme Court faces special challenges in dealing with the regulation of speech on the internet. The internet’s unique qualities, such as its ability to spread potentially dangerous information quickly and widely, as well as its easy accessibility by minors, have prompted lawmakers to call for tighter restrictions on internet speech.

Others argue that Congress and the courts should refrain from limiting the possibilities of the internet unnecessarily and prematurely because it is a technologically evolving medium. For its part, the Supreme Court continues to balance First Amendment precedents with the technological features of the medium.

Congress has attempted to protect minors from pornography on the internet

One major area of internet regulation is protecting minors from pornography and other indecent or obscene speech . For example, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996 prohibiting “the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages” over the internet to minors. However, in 1997 the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union struck down this law as being too vague. The court held that the regulation created a chilling effect on speech and prohibited more speech than necessary to achieve the objective of protecting children.

The court also rejected the government’s arguments that speech on the internet should receive a reduced level of First Amendment protection, akin to that of the broadcast media which is regulated. Instead, the court ruled that speech on the internet should receive the highest level of First Amendment protection — like that extended to the print media.

In response to the court’s ruling, Congress in 1998 passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) , which dealt only with minors’ access to commercial pornography and provided clear methods to be used by site owners to prevent access by minors. However, in 2004 the court struck down COPA in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , stating that less restrictive methods such as filtering and blocking should be used instead. The court suggested that these alternative methods were at least in theory more effective than those specified in COPA because of the large volume of foreign pornography that Congress cannot regulate.

The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to require libraries to install filters on their public computers to protect children from obscene material as a condition for receiving federal aid to purchase computers. But the three dissenting justices in United States v. American Library Association (2003) viewed the requirement of filtering devices on library computers, which both adults and children must request to be unlocked, to be an overly broad restriction on adult access to protected speech.

Congress has also attempted to criminalize virtual child pornography

Congress also ventured into the area of child pornography, passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in 1996. The CPPA criminalized virtual child pornography—that is, pornography that sexually depicts, or conveys the impression of depicting, minors. Although the act targeted computer-generated or altered works advertised as child pornography, in Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (9th Cir. 1999) the federal appeals court found some language in the statute to be so overly broad and vague that much protected speech would be covered under the CPPA. The court noted that the state’s interest in protecting children from the physical and psychological abuse arising from their participation in the making of pornography—the basis for its ban in New York v. Ferber (1982) —was not present in virtual child pornography.

People use computers to access the Internet at the Boston Public Library, in Boston, 2003. The Supreme Court said public libraries must make it harder for internet surfers to look at pornography or they will lose government funding. Justices ruled in United States v. American Library Association (2003) that the federal government can withhold money from libraries that won’t install blocking devices. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, used with permission from the Associated Press.)

‘Hit list’ of abortion doctors on website found to be ‘true threat’

U.S. courts have also dealt with other areas of internet speech that traditionally have been less protected or unprotected under the First Amendment. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (9th Cir. 2002) , decided by an en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centered on what constitutes dangerous speech and a true threat in the context of the internet.

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) posted the personal contact information of doctors who performed abortions, including details such as the names of their children. The names of doctors who had been murdered were crossed off and the names of those who had been wounded by anti-abortion activists were grayed. Although the site did not contain explicit threats, opponents argued that it was akin to a hit list, and the doctors on the list believed it to be a serious threat to their safety.

The appeals court held that the ACLA could be held liable for civil damages, and that the website did not contain political speech protected under the First Amendment. The court wrote: “It is the use of the ‘wanted’-type format in the context of the poster pattern—poster followed by murder—that constitutes the threat.” The posters were not “political hyperbole” because “[p]hysicians could well believe that ACLA would make good on the threat.” Thus it was a true threat , not protected as political speech.

In an earlier case in 1997, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a different decision on violent material posted on the web and sent in emails by a university student, appearing to plan an attack on a woman at his college. Abraham Alkhabaz claimed the emails were mere fantasy. In United States v. Alkhabaz, and circuit court agreed, concluding that the messages did not constitute a true threat because they were not “conveyed to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation.”

Rights of anonymous speech not absolute on internet

The extent of the right to anonymous speech on the internet has also become an issue in some court cases. The Supreme Court has recognized anonymity rights in speech , albeit not an absolute right, and lower courts have generally taken the same view when it comes to anonymous speech on the internet.

In “ The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online ,” author Jeff Kosseff explores two cases, Dentrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and Cahill v. Doe , 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct., June 14, 2005), in which courts recognized relatively strong First Amendment presumptions on behalf of purveyors of anonymous speech, especially for those that are statements of opinions rather than obvious falsehoods, while recognizing that government sometimes has the right to identify such speakers when they have used their platforms to harass, engage in slander or sexual predation, make true threats, or allow foreign governments to influence U.S. elections.

This article was originally published in 2009 and was updated in March 2022.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please donate now!

Internet Speech

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

ACLU Statement on Latest Congressional Attempt to Dismantle Free Speech Online

ACLU Commends the FCC’s Restoration of Net Neutrality Regulations

ACLU, Civil-Society Groups, Urge Congress to Extend Funding for Affordable Internet Program

ACLU Commends FCC Efforts to Restore Net Neutrality Rules

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Communications Decency Act Section 230

Net neutrality, online anonymity and identity, what's at stake.

The digital revolution has produced the most diverse, participatory, and amplified communications medium humans have ever had: the Internet. The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books, newspapers, and magazines.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of expression in its myriad forms. We brought the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendment’s historical protections. In that case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , the Supreme Court held that the government can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it can snatch a book out of someone’s hands or cover up a nude statue in a museum.

But that principle has not prevented constant new threats to Internet free speech. The ACLU remains vigilant against laws or policies that create new decency restrictions for online content, limit minors’ access to information, or allow the unmasking of anonymous speakers without careful court scrutiny.

By William Fisher

Last Updated June 14, 2001

Table of Contents

Introduction The Internet offers extraordinary opportunities for "speakers," broadly defined. Political candidates, cultural critics, corporate gadflies -- anyone who wants to express an opinion about anything -- can make their thoughts available to a world-wide audience far more easily than has ever been possible before. A large and growing group of Internet participants have seized that opportunity. Some observers find the resultant outpouring of speech exhilarating. They see in it nothing less than the revival of democracy and the restoration of community. Other observers find the amount -- and, above all, the kind of speech -- that the Internet has stimulated offensive or frightening. Pornography, hate speech, lurid threats -- these flourish alongside debates over the future of the Democratic Party and exchanges of views concerning flyfishing in Patagonia. This phenomenon has provoked various efforts to limit the kind of speech in which one may engage on the Internet -- or to develop systems to "filter out" the more offensive material. This module examines some of the legal issues implicated by the increasing bitter struggle between the advocates of "free speech" and the advocates of filtration and control. Back to Top | Intro | Background | Current Controversies | Discussion Topics | Additional Resources Background Before plunging into the details of the proliferating controversies over freedom of expression on the Internet, you need some background information on two topics. The first and more obvious is the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The relevance and authority of the First Amendment should not be exaggerated; as several observers have remarked, "on the Internet, the First Amendment is just a local ordinance." However, free-expression controversies that arise in the United States inevitably implicate the Constitution. And the arguments deployed in the course of American First-Amendment fights often inform or infect the handling of free-expression controversies in other countries. The upshot: First-Amendment jurisprudence is worth studying. Unfortunately, that jurisprudence is large and arcane. The relevant constitutional provision is simple enough: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .." But the case law that, over the course of the twentieth century, has been built upon this foundation is complex. An extremely abbreviated outline of the principal doctrines would go as follows: If a law gives no clear notice of the kind of speech it prohibits, its "void for vagueness." If a law burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to advance a compelling government interest, its unconstitutionally "overbroad." A government may not force a person to endorse any symbol, slogan, or pledge. Governmental restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" in which speech is permitted are constitutional if and only if: they are "content neutral," both on their face and as applied; they leave substantial other opportunities for speech to take place; and they "narrowly serve a significant state interest." On state-owned property that does not constitute a "public forum," government may restrict speech in any way that is reasonable in light of the nature and purpose of the property in question. Content-based governmental restrictions on speech are unconstitutional unless they advance a "compelling state interest." To this principle, there are six exceptions: 1. Speech that is likely to lead to imminent lawless action may be prohibited. 2. "Fighting words" -- i.e., words so insulting that people are likely to fight back -- may be prohibited. 3. Obscenity -- i.e., erotic expression, grossly or patently offensive to an average person, that lacks serious artistic or social value -- may be prohibited. 4. Child pornography may be banned whether or not it is legally obscene and whether or not it has serious artistic or social value, because it induces people to engage in lewd displays, and the creation of it threatens the welfare of children. 5. Defamatory statements may be prohibited. (In other words, the making of such statements may constitutionally give rise to civil liability.) However, if the target of the defamation is a "public figure," she must prove that the defendant acted with "malice." If the target is not a "public figure" but the statement involved a matter of "public concern," the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with negligence concerning its falsity. 6. Commercial Speech may be banned only if it is misleading, pertains to illegal products, or directly advances a substantial state interest with a degree of suppression no greater than is reasonably necessary.

If you are familiar with all of these precepts -- including the various terms of art and ambiguities they contain -- you're in good shape. If not, you should read some more about the First Amendment. A thorough and insightful study of the field may be found in Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed.), chapter 12. Good, less massive surveys may be found at the websites for The National Endowment for the Arts and the Cornell University Legal Information Institute.

The second of the two kinds of background you might find helpful is a brief introduction to the current debate among academics over the character and desirability of what has come to be called "cyberdemocracy." Until a few years ago, many observers thought that the Internet offered a potential cure to the related diseases that have afflicted most representative democracies in the late twentieth century: voter apathy; the narrowing of the range of political debate caused in part by the inertia of a system of political parties; the growing power of the media, which in turn seems to reduce discussion of complex issues to a battle of "sound bites"; and the increasing influence of private corporations and other sources of wealth. All of these conditions might be ameliorated, it was suggested, by the ease with which ordinary citizens could obtain information and then cheaply make their views known to one another through the Internet.

A good example of this perspective is a recent article by Bernard Bell , where he suggests that [t]he Internet has, in many ways, moved society closer to the ideal Justice Brennan set forth so eloquently in New York Times v. Sullivan . It has not only made debate on public issues more 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' but has similarly invigorated discussion of non-public issues. By the same token, the Internet has empowered smaller entities and even individuals, enabling them to widely disseminate their messages and, indeed, reach audiences as broad as those of established media organizations.

Recently, however, this rosy view has come under attack. The Internet, skeptics claim, is not a giant "town hall." The kinds of information flows and discussions it seems to foster are, in some ways, disturbing. One source of trouble is that the Internet encourages like-minded persons (often geographically dispersed) to cluster together in bulletin boards and other virtual clubs. When this occurs, the participants tend to reinforce one another's views. The resultant "group polarization" can be ugly. More broadly, the Internet seems at least potentially corrosive of something we have long taken for granted in the United States: a shared political culture. When most people read the same newspaper or watch the same network television news broadcast each day, they are forced at least to glance at stories they might fight troubling and become aware of persons and groups who hold views sharply different from their own. The Internet makes it easy for people to avoid such engagement -- by enabling people to select their sources of information and their conversational partners. The resultant diminution in the power of a few media outlets pleases some observers, like Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute. But the concomitant corrosion of community and shared culture deeply worries others, like Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago.

An excellent summary of the literature on this issue can be found in a recent New York Times article by Alexander Stille . If you are interested in digging further into these issues, we recommend the following books:

Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton Univ. Press 2001)
Peter Huber, Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the F.C.C. and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm (Oxford Univ. Press 1997)

To test some of these competing accounts of the character and potential of discourse on the Internet, we suggest you visit - or, better yet, participate in - some of the sites at which Internet discourse occurs. Here's a sampler:

MSNBC Political News Discussion Board

Current Controversies

1. Restrictions on Pornography

Three times in the past five years, critics of pornography on the Internet have sought, through federal legislation, to prevent children from gaining access to it. The first of these efforts was the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (commonly known as the "CDA"), which (a) criminalized the "knowing" transmission over the Internet of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18 years of age and (b) prohibited the "knowin[g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Persons and organizations who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, or who restricted such access by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification number, were exempted from these prohibitions.

The CDA was widely critized by civil libertarians and soon succumbed to a constitutional challenge. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court struck down the statute, holding that it violated the First Amendment in several ways:

because it restricted speech on the basis of its content, it could not be justified as a "time, place, and manner" regulation;
its references to "indecent" and "patently offensive" messages were unconstitutionally vague;
its supposed objectives could all be achieved through regulations less restrictive of speech;
it failed to exempt from its prohibitions sexually explicit material with scientific, educational, or other redeeming social value.

Two aspects of the Court's ruling are likely to have considerable impact on future constitutional decisions in this area. First, the Court rejected the Government's effort to analogize the Internet to traditional broadcast media (especially television), which the Court had previously held could be regulated more strictly than other media. Unlike TV, the Court reasoned, the Internet has not historically been subject to extensive regulation, is not characterized by a limited spectrum of available frequencies, and is not "invasive." Consequently, the Internet enjoys full First-Amendment protection. Second, the Court encouraged the development of technologies that would enable parents to block their children's access to Internet sites offering kinds of material the parents deemed offensive.

A year later, pressured by vocal opponents of Internet pornography -- such as "Enough is Enough" and the National Law Center for Children and Families -- Congress tried again. The 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) obliged commercial Web operators to restrict access to material considered "harmful to minors" -- which was, in turn, defined as any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that meets three requirements:

(1) "The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest." (2) The material "depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual conduct, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast." (3) The material, "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Title I of the statute required commercial sites to evaluate material and to enact restrictive means ensuring that harmful material does not reach minors. Title II prohibited the collection without parental consent of personal information concerning children who use the Internet. Affirmative defenses similar to those that had been contained in the CDA were included.

Once again, the courts found that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority. In the judgment of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals , the critical defect of COPA was its reliance upon the criterion of "contemporary community standards" to determine what kinds of speech are permitted on the Internet:

Because material posted on the Web is accessible by all Internet users worldwide, and because current technology does not permit a Web publisher to restrict access to its site based on the geographic locale of a each particular Internet user, COPA essentially requires that every Web publisher subject to the statute abide by the most restrictive and conservative state's community standard in order to avoid criminal liability.

The net result was to impose burdens on permissible expression more severe than can be tolerated by the Constitution. The court acknowledged that its ruling did not leave much room for constitutionally valid restrictions on Internet pornography:

We are forced to recognize that, at present, due to technological limitations, there may be no other means by which harmful material on the Web may be constitutionally restricted, although, in light of rapidly developing technological advances, what may now be impossible to regulate constitutionally may, in the not-too-distant future, become feasible.

In late 2000, the anti-pornography forces tried once more. At their urging, Congress adopted the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA), which requires schools and libraries that receive federal funding (either grants or "e-rate" subsidies) to install Internet filtering equipment on library computers that can be used by children. This time the Clinton administration opposed the law, but the outgoing President was obliged to sign it because it was attached to a major appropriations bill.

Opposition to CHIPA is intensifying. Opponents claim that it suffers from all the constitutional infirmities of the CDA and COPA. In addition, it will reinforce one form of the "digital divide" -- by subjecting poor children, who lack home computers and must rely upon public libraries for access to the Internet, to restrictions that more wealthy children can avoid. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has organized protests against the statute. In April of this year, several civil-liberties groups and public library associations filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. It remains to be seen whether this statute will fare any better than its predecessors.

The CDA, COPA, and CHIPA have one thing in common: they all involve overt governmental action -- and thus are subject to challenge under the First Amendment. Some observers of the Internet argue that more dangerous than these obvious legislative initiatives are the efforts by private Internet Service Providers to install filters on their systems that screen out kinds of content that the ISPs believe their subscribers would find offensive. Because policies of this sort are neither mandated nor encouraged by the government, they would not, under conventional constitutional principles, constitute "state action" -- and thus would not be vulnerable to constitutional scrutiny. Such a result, argues Larry Lessig, would be pernicious; to avoid it, we need to revise our understanding of the "state action" doctrine. Charles Fried disagrees:

Note first of all that the state action doctrine does not only limit the power of courts to protect persons from private power that interferes with public freedoms. It also protects individuals from the courts themselves, which are, after all, another government agency. By limiting the First Amendment to protecting citizens from government (and not from each other), the state action doctrine enlarges the sphere of unregulated discretion that individuals may exercise in what they think and say. In the name of First Amendment "values," courts could perhaps inquire whether I must grant access to my newspaper to opinions I abhor, must allow persons whose moral standards I deplore to join my expressive association, or must remain silent so that someone else gets a chance to reach my audience with a less appealing but unfamiliar message. Such inquiries, however, would place courts in the business of deciding which opinions I would have to publish in my newspaper and which would so distort my message that putting those words in my mouth would violate my freedom of speech; what an organization's associational message really is and whether forcing the organization to accept a dissenting member would distort that message; and which opinions, though unable to attract an audience on their own, are so worthy that they must not be drowned out by more popular messages. I am not convinced that whatever changes the Internet has wrought in our environment require the courts to mount this particular tiger.

"Perfect Freedom or Perfect Control," 114 Harvard Law Review 606, 635 (2000).

The United States may have led the way in seeking (unsuccessfully, thus far) to restrict the flow of pornography on the Internet, but the governments of other countries are now joining the fray. For the status of the struggle in a few jurisdictions, you might read:

Joseph C. Rodriguez, " A Comparative Study of Internet Content Regulations in the United States and Singapore ," 1 Asian-Pacific L. & Pol'y J. 9 (February 2000). (Singapore)

In a provocative recent article, Amy Adler argues that the effort to curb child pornography online -- the kind of pornography that disgusts the most people -- is fundamentally misguided. Far from reducing the incidence of the sexual abuse of children, governmental efforts to curtail child pornography only increase it. A summary of her argument is available here . The full article is available here .

2. Threats

When does speech become a threat? Put more precisely, when does a communication over the Internet inflict -- or threaten to inflict -- sufficient damage on its recipient that it ceases to be protected by the First Amendment and properly gives rise to criminal sanctions? Two recent cases addressed that issue from different angles.

The first was popularly known as the "Jake Baker" case. In 1994 and 1995, Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, also known as Jake Baker, was an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan. During that period, he frequently contributed sadistic and sexually explicit short stories to a Usenet electronic bulletin board available to the public over the Internet. In one such story, he described in detail how he and a companion tortured, sexually abused, and killed a young woman, who was given the name of one of Baker's classmates. (Excerpts from the story, as reprinted in the Court of Appeals decision in the case, are available here . WARNING: This material is very graphic in nature and may be troubling to some readers. It is presented in order to provide a complete view of the facts of the case.) Baker's stories came to the attention of another Internet user, who assumed the name of Arthur Gonda. Baker and Gonda then exchanged many email messages, sharing their sadistic fantasies and discussing the methods by which they might kidnap and torture a woman in Baker's dormitory. When these stories and email exchanges came to light, Baker was indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c), which provides:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Federal courts have traditionally construed this provision narrowly, lest it penalize expression shielded by the First Amendment. Specifically, the courts have required that a defendant's statement, in order to trigger criminal sanctions, constitute a "true threat" -- as distinguished from, for example, inadvertent statements, hyperbole, innocuous talk, or political commentary. Baker moved to quash the indictment on the ground that his statements on the Internet did not constitute "true threats." The District Court agreed , ruling that the class of women supposedly threatened was not identified in Baker's exchanges with Gonda with the degree of specificity required by the First Amendment and that, although Baker had expressed offensive desires, "it was not constitutionally permissible to infer an intention to act on a desire from a simple expression of desire." The District Judge's concluding remarks concerning the character of threatening speech on the Internet bear emphasis:

Baker's words were transmitted by means of the Internet, a relatively new communications medium that is itself currently the subject of much media attention. The Internet makes it possible with unprecedented ease to achieve world-wide distribution of material, like Baker's story, posted to its public areas. When used in such a fashion, the Internet may be likened to a newspaper with unlimited distribution and no locatable printing press - and with no supervising editorial control. But Baker's e-mail messages, on which the superseding indictment is based, were not publicly published but privately sent to Gonda. While new technology such as the Internet may complicate analysis and may sometimes require new or modified laws, it does not in this instance qualitatively change the analysis under the statute or under the First Amendment. Whatever Baker's faults, and he is to be faulted, he did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).

Two of the three judges on the panel that heard the appeal agreed . In their view, a violation of 875(c) requires a demonstration, first, that a reasonable person would interpret the communication in question as serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm and, second, that a reasonable person would perceive the communications as being conveyed "to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation." Baker's speech failed, in their judgment, to rise to this level.

Judge Krupansky, the third member of the panel, dissented . In a sharply worded opinion, he denounced the majority for compelling the prosecution to meet a standard higher that Congress intended or than the First Amendment required. In his view, "the pertinent inquiry is whether a jury could find that a reasonable recipient of the communication would objectively tend to believe that the speaker was serious about his stated intention." A reasonable jury, he argued, could conclude that Baker's speech met this standard -- especially in light of the fact that the woman named in the short story had, upon learning of it, experienced a "shattering traumatic reaction that resulted in recommended psychological counselling."

For additional information on the case, see Adam S. Miller, The Jake Baker Scandal: A Perversion of Logic .

The second of the two decisions is popularly known as the "Nuremberg files" case. In 1995, the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), an anti-abortion group that advocates the use of force in their efforts to curtail abortions, created a poster featuring what the ACLA described as the "Dirty Dozen," a group of doctors who performed abortions. The posters offered "a $ 5,000 [r]eward for information leading to arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine" of the doctors in question, and listed their home addresses and, in some instances, their phone numbers. Versions of the poster were distributed at anti-abortion rallies and later on television. In 1996, an expanded list of abortion providers, now dubbed the "Nuremberg files," was posted on the Internet with the assistance of an anti-abortion activist named Neil Horsley. The Internet version of the list designated doctors and clinic workers who had been attacked by anti-abortion terrorists in two ways: the names of people who had been murdered were crossed out; the names of people who had been wounded were printed in grey. (For a version of the Nuremberg Files web site, click here. WARNING: This material is very graphic in nature and may be disturbing to many readers. It is presented in order to provide a complete view of the facts of the case).

The doctors named and described on the list feared for their lives. In particular, some testified that they feared that, by publicizing their addresses and descriptions, the ACLA had increased the ease with which terrorists could locate and attack them -- and that, by publicizing the names of doctors who had already been killed, the ACLA was encouraging those attacks.

Some of the doctors sought recourse in the courts. They sued the ACLA, twelve individual anti-abortion activists and an affiliated organization, contending that their actions violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE), 18 U.S.C. §248, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §1962. In an effort to avoid a First-Amendment challenge to the suit, the trial judge instructed the jury that defendants could be liable only if their statements were "true threats." The jury, concluding that the ACLA had indeed made such true threats, awarded the plaintiffs $107 million in actual and punitive damages. The trial court then enjoined the defendants from making or distributing the posters, the webpage or anything similar.

This past March, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the verdict , ruling that it violated the First Amendment. Judge Kozinski began his opinion by likening the anti-abortion movement to other "political movements in American history," such as the Patriots in the American Revolution, abolitionism, the labor movement, the anti-war movement in the 1960s, the animal-rights movement, and the environmental movement. All, he argued, have had their "violent fringes," which have lent to the language of their non-violent members "a tinge of menace." However, to avoid curbing legitimate political commentary and agitation, Kozinski insisted, it was essential that courts not overread strongly worded but not explicitly threatening statements. Specifically, he held that:

Defendants can only be held liable if they "authorized, ratified, or directly threatened" violence. If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their statements could properly support the verdict. But if their statements merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment.

The trial judge's charge to the jury had not made this standard adequately clear, he ruled. More importantly, no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have concluded that the standard had been met. Accordingly, the trial judge was instructed to dissolve the injunction and enter judgment for the defendants on all counts.

In the course of his opinion, Kozinski offered the following reflections on the fact that the defendants' speech had occurred in public discourse -- including the Internet:

In considering whether context could import a violent meaning to ACLA's non-violent statements, we deem it highly significant that all the statements were made in the context of public discourse, not in direct personal communications. Although the First Amendment does not protect all forms of public speech, such as statements inciting violence or an imminent panic, the public nature of the speech bears heavily upon whether it could be interpreted as a threat. As we held in McCalden v. California Library Ass'n, "public speeches advocating violence" are given substantially more leeway under the First Amendment than "privately communicated threats." There are two reasons for this distinction: First, what may be hyperbole in a public speech may be understood (and intended) as a threat if communicated directly to the person threatened, whether face-to-face, by telephone or by letter. In targeting the recipient personally, the speaker leaves no doubt that he is sending the recipient a message of some sort. In contrast, typical political statements at rallies or through the media are far more diffuse in their focus because they are generally intended, at least in part, to shore up political support for the speaker's position. Second, and more importantly, speech made through the normal channels of group communication, and concerning matters of public policy, is given the maximum level of protection by the Free Speech Clause because it lies at the core of the First Amendment.

2. Intellectual Property

The First Amendment forbids Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech. The copyright statute plainly interferes with certain kinds of speech: it prevents people from publicly performing or reproducing copyrighted material without permission. In other words, several ways in which people might be inclined to speak have been declared by Congress illegal . Does this imply that the copyright statute as a whole or, less radically, some specific applications of it should be deemed unconstitutional?

Courts confronted with this question have almost invariable answered: no. Two justifications are commonly offered in support of the compatibility of copyright and freedom of speech. First, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, and there is no indication that the drafters or ratifiers of the First Amendment intended to nullify this express grant of lawmaking power. Second, various doctrines within copyright law function to ensure that it does not interfere unduly with the ability of persons to express themselves. Specifically, the principle that only the particular way in which an idea is expressed is copyrightable, not the idea itself, ensures that the citizenry will be able to discuss concepts, arguments, facts, etc. without restraint. Even more importantly, the fair use doctrine (discussed in the first module) provides a generous safe harbor to people making reasonable uses of copyrighted material for educational, critical, or scientific purposes. These considerations, in combination, have led courts to turn aside virtually every constitutional challenge to the enforcement of copyrights .

Very recently, some of the ways in which copyright law has been modified and then applied to activity on the Internet has prompted a growing number of scholars and litigants to suggest that the conventional methods for reconciling copyright law and the First Amendment need to be reexamined. Two developments present the issue especially sharply:

(1) For reasons we explored in the second module , last summer a federal court in New York ruled that posting on a website a link to another website from which a web surfer can download a software program designed to break an encryption system constitutes trafficking in anti-circumvention technology in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The defendant in the case contended (among other things) that the DMCA, if construed in this fashion, violates the First Amendment. Judge Kaplan rejected this contention, reasoning that a combination of the Copyright Clause and an generous understanding of the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution provided constitutional support for the DMCA:

In enacting the DMCA, Congress found that the restriction of technologies for the circumvention of technological means of protecting copyrighted works "facilitate[s] the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education" by "mak[ing] digital networks safe places to disseminate and exploit copyrighted materials." That view can not be dismissed as unreasonable. Section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA therefore is a proper exercise of Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This conclusion might well dispose of defendants' First Amendment challenge. Given Congress' justifiable view that the DMCA is instrumental in carrying out the objective of the Copyright Clause, there arguably is no First Amendment objection to prohibiting the dissemination of means for circumventing technological methods for controlling access to copyrighted works. But the Court need not rest on this alone. In determining the constitutionality of governmental restriction on speech, courts traditionally have balanced the public interest in the restriction against the public interest in the kind of speech at issue. This approach seeks to determine, in light of the goals of the First Amendment, how much protection the speech at issue merits. It then examines the underlying rationale for the challenged regulation and assesses how best to accommodate the relative weights of the interests in free speech interest and the regulation. As Justice Brandeis wrote, freedom of speech is important both as a means to achieve a democratic society and as an end in itself. Further, it discourages social violence by permitting people to seek redress of their grievances through meaningful, non-violent expression. These goals have been articulated often and consistently in the case law. The computer code at issue in this case does little to serve these goals. Although this Court has assumed that DeCSS has at least some expressive content, the expressive aspect appears to be minimal when compared to its functional component. Computer code primarily is a set of instructions which, when read by the computer, cause it to function in a particular way, in this case, to render intelligible a data file on a DVD. It arguably "is best treated as a virtual machine . . . ." On the other side of this balance lie the interests served by the DMCA. Copyright protection exists to "encourage individual effort by personal gain" and thereby "advance public welfare" through the "promot[ion of] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The DMCA plainly was designed with these goals in mind. It is a tool to protect copyright in the digital age. It responds to the risks of technological circumvention of access controlling mechanisms designed to protect copyrighted works distributed in digital form. It is designed to further precisely the goals articulated above, goals of unquestionably high social value. This is quite clear in the specific context of this case. Plaintiffs are eight major motion picture studios which together are largely responsible for the development of the American film industry. Their products reach hundreds of millions of viewers internationally and doubtless are responsible for a substantial portion of the revenue in the international film industry each year. To doubt the contribution of plaintiffs to the progress of the arts would be absurd. DVDs are the newest way to distribute motion pictures to the home market, and their popularity is growing rapidly. The security of DVD technology is central to the continued distribution of motion pictures in this format. The dissemination and use of circumvention technologies such as DeCSS would permit anyone to make flawless copies of DVDs at little expense. Without effective limits on these technologies, copyright protection in the contents of DVDs would become meaningless and the continued marketing of DVDs impractical. This obviously would discourage artistic progress and undermine the goals of copyright. The balance between these two interests is clear. Executable computer code of the type at issue in this case does little to further traditional First Amendment interests. The DMCA, in contrast, fits squarely within the goals of copyright, both generally and as applied to DeCSS. In consequence, the balance of interests in this case falls decidedly on the side of plaintiffs and the DMCA.

One of the axes of debate in the ongoing appeal of the lower-court ruling concerns this issue. For a challenge to Judge Kaplan's discussion of the First-Amendment, see the amicus brief submitted to the Second Circuit by a group of law professors .

(2) Some scholars believe that the ambit of the fair use doctrine should and will shrink on the Internet. Why? Because, in their view, the principal purpose of the doctrine is to enable people to use copyrighted materials in ways that are socially valuable but that are likely, in the absence of a special legal privilege, to be blocked by transaction costs. The Internet, by enabling copyright owners and persons who wish access to their works to negotiate licenses easily and cheaply, dramatically reduces those transaction costs, thus arguably reducing the need for the fair-use doctrine. Recall that one of the justifications conventionally offered to explain the compatibility of copyright law and the First Amendment is the safety valve afforded critical commentary and educational activity by the fair use doctrine. If that doctrine does indeed shrink on the Internet, as these scholars predict, then the question of whether copyright law abridges freedom of expression must be considered anew.

Discussion Topics

1. Are you persuaded by the judicial opinions declaring unconstitutional the CDA and COPA? Should CHIPA suffer the same fate? Are there any ways in which government might regulate the Internet so as to shield children from pornography?

2. Some authors have suggested that the best way to respond to pornography on the Internet is through "zoning." For example, Christopher Furlow suggests the use of restricted top-level domains or rTLDs which would function similarly to area codes to identify particular areas of the Internet and make it easier for parents to control what type of material their children are exposed to online. See Erogenous Zoning on The Cyber-Frontier, 5 Va. J.L. & Tech. 7, 4 (Spring 2000) . Do you find this proposal attractive? practicable? effective?

3. Elizabeth Marsh raises the following question: Suppose that the Ku Klux Klan sent unsolicited email messages to large numbers of African-Americans and Jews. Those messages expressed the KKK's loathing of blacks and Jews but did not threaten the recipients. Under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction, what legal remedies, if any, would be available to the recipients of such email messages? Should the First Amendment be construed to shield "hate spam" of this sort? More broadly, should "hate spam" be tolerated or suppressed? For Marsh's views on the matter, see " Purveyors of Hate on the Internet: Are We Ready for Hate Spam ?", 17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 379 (Winter 2000).

4. Were the Jake Baker and Nuremberg Files cases decided correctly? How would you draw the line between "threats" subject to criminal punishment and "speech" protected by the First Amendment?

5. Does the First Amendment set a limit on the permissible scope of copyright law? If so, how would you define that limit?

6. Lyrissa Lidsky , points out that the ways in which the Supreme Court has deployed the First Amendment to limit the application of the tort of defamation are founded on the assumption that most defamation suits will be brought against relatively powerful institutions (e.g., newspapers, television stations). The Internet, by enabling relatively poor and powerless persons to broadcast to the world their opinions of powerful institutions (e.g., their employers, companies by which they feel wronged) increases the likelihood that, in the future, defamation suits will be brought most often by formidable plaintiffs against weak individual defendants. If we believe that "[t]he Internet is . . . a powerful tool for equalizing imbalances of power by giving voice to the disenfranchised and by allowing more democratic participation in public discourse," we should be worried by this development. Lidsky suggests that it may be necessary, in this altered climate, to reconsider the shape of the constitutional limitations on defamation. Do you agree? If so, how would you reformulate the relevant limitations?

7. Like Lessig, Paul Berman suggests that the Internet should prompt us to reconsider the traditional "state action" doctrine that limits the kinds of interference with speech to which the First-Amendment applies. Berman supports this suggestion with the following example: an online service provider recently attempted to take action against an entity that had sent junk e-mail on its service, a district court rejected the e-mailer's argument that such censorship of e-mail violated the First Amendment. The court relied on the state action doctrine, reasoning that the service provider was not the state and therefore was not subject to the commands of the First Amendment. Such an outcome, he suggests, is unfortunate. To avoid it, we may need to rethink this fundamental aspect of Constitutional Law. Do you agree? See Berman, "Symposium Overview: Part IV: How (If At All) to Regulate The Internet: Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to Private Regulation," 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1263 (Fall 2000). Back to Top | Intro | Background | Current Controversies | Discussion Topics | Additional Resources

Additional Resources

Memorandum Opinion, Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library , U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 97-2049-A. (November 23, 1998)

Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library , (Tech Law Journal Summary)

Lawrence Lessig, Tyranny of the Infrastructure , Wired 5.07 (July 1997)

Board of Education v. Pico

ACLU Report, "Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?"

Reno v. ACLU

ACLU offers various materials relating to the Reno v. ACLU case.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (Browse the Free Expression page, Censorship & Free Expression archive and the Content Filtering archive.)

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) offers links to various aspects of CDA litigation and discussion.

Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) (Skim the "PICS and Intellectual Freedom FAQ". Browse "What Governments, Media and Individuals are Saying about PICS (pro and con)".)

Jason Schlosberg, Judgment on "Nuremberg": An Analysis of Free Speech and Anti-Abortion Threats Made on the Internet , 7 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. (Winter 2001)

CyberAngels.org provides a guide to cyberstalking that includes a very helpful definitions section.

Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President (August 1999) provides very helpful definitions and explanations related to cyberstalking, including 1 st Amendment implications; also provides links to additional resources.

National Center for Victims of Crime

The Anti-Defamation League web site offers a wealth of resources for dealing with hate online , including guides for parents and filtering software. The filtering software, called Hate Filter, is designed to give parents the ability to make decisions regarding what their children are exposed to online. The ADL believes that Censorship is not the answer to hate on the Internet. ADL supports the free speech guarantees embodied in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, believing that the best way to combat hateful speech is with more speech.

Laura Lorek, "Sue the bastards!." ZDNet 3/12/2001.

"At Risk Online: Your Good Name." ZDNet April 2001.

Jennifer K. Swartz, " Beyond the Schoolhouse Gates: Do Students Shed Their Constitutional Rights When Communicating to a Cyber-Audience ," 48 Drake L. Rev. 587 (2000).

Speech on Importance Of Internet

The Internet, like a worldwide web, connects you to the rest of the world. It’s like a vast ocean of information, readily available at your fingertips.

Without it, imagine how difficult it would be to send emails, do research, or even make online purchases. The Internet is indeed a valuable tool in our daily lives.

1-minute Speech on Importance Of Internet

Friends, today we’re talking about an essential part of our daily lives – the Internet. Why is it so important? Let’s discuss.

The Internet makes our world smaller. Think about it. We can talk to anyone, anywhere, any time. You can chat with your friend from the next city or even from the other side of the world. The Internet erases the lines on the map, making us all neighbors.

Learning is easier with the Internet. Type a question into Google and you get your answer. No more thick, heavy books. No more long walks to the library. The Internet is like a giant teacher that knows everything. It’s a school that’s open 24/7, waiting for you to learn.

The Internet helps us do things faster. Paying bills, shopping, booking tickets – all done with a few clicks. No long lines, no waiting. It’s like having a magic wand that gets things done instantly.

But the Internet also has a heart. It helps us during tough times. When floods, fires, or sickness come, we can use the Internet to ask for help. It brings us together, helping us care for each other.

In conclusion, the Internet is more than just wires and screens. It’s a tool that brings us closer, makes our lives easier, and helps us when we’re in need. It’s a friend, a teacher, a helper. It’s a part of our lives that’s here to stay. Let’s use it wisely and make the most of what it offers.

2-minute Speech on Importance Of Internet

Good day to you all!

Let’s talk about something that surrounds us every day, the Internet. Imagine a world without it. Tough, isn’t it? That’s because the Internet has become a crucial part of our lives. It’s like a giant invisible web that links us all, no matter where we are.

First, let’s talk about communication. Gone are the days when we had to wait weeks for a letter. Now, we can instantly send messages, photos, and even video calls to anyone, anywhere. It’s like having a magic tool that helps us talk to our friends, family, or even strangers around the world.

Next, let’s talk about learning. The Internet is like a vast ocean of knowledge. Whether it’s homework help, learning a new language, or even cooking a new dish, the Internet has answers to all our questions. It’s like a huge library that’s open 24/7. We can learn new things and improve our skills, all thanks to the Internet.

Now, let’s discuss entertainment. From listening to music, watching movies, playing games, to exploring new places virtually, the Internet offers endless fun. It’s like a playground where we can enjoy and relax whenever we want.

Also, we can’t forget about shopping. The Internet has made buying things a breeze. We can purchase anything, from clothes, food, gadgets, to even furniture, without leaving our home. It’s like having a giant shopping mall at our fingertips.

Lastly, let’s talk about how the Internet helps us stay updated. Whether it’s news about our city, country, or the world, the Internet keeps us informed. It’s like a big newspaper that updates itself every second.

In conclusion, the Internet is a powerful tool that has transformed our lives. It helps us communicate, learn, entertain ourselves, shop, and stay updated. It’s like a magic wand that can fulfill our needs and wants. But remember, like all powerful tools, we should use the Internet responsibly.

Thank you for your time. Remember, the Internet is not just a network of computers, it’s a network of possibilities. Embrace it, use it wisely, and it will open doors to a world of opportunities.

Speech on Importance Of Homework
Speech on Importance Of Healthy Life
Speech on Importance Of Healthy Food

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

20 Eye-Opening Speeches on the Internet

From the Physical World Wide Web to Social Media in China

Speech Topics For Kids

Speech on Internet

The term ‘internet’ is a commonly discussed topic because of its prominence in today’s world. It is also one of the topics that is chosen for speeches. Now, if you are asked to write a speech on internet, what points would you include? Confused! Well, this article will walk you through all the points that you can include in your speech. Check it out.

Speech on the importance of internet, disadvantages of internet.

FAQs on Speech on the Internet

The internet has become an indispensable part of everyday life. The internet was first invented by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf . While internet has many advantages, it does have disadvantages too. The following section speaks about the advantages of the internet.

Free material availability – Many students can’t afford expensive books, so the internet serves as the best way for them to avail free study materials. The internet gives scope to many kids to go through various study materials and choose from a wide range of information.
Facilitates online learning – With the COVID-19, study and work became completely online. The availability of the internet is what allowed students to attend classes, sitting at their homes. This made learning possible even in the midst of the pandemic.
Connects people from far and wide – Many of our family members and friends stay at different places and with the internet, it has become easy for us to catch up with them through video calls or emails. Before this, people had to pay a huge amount of money to connect with their beloved ones who were living far away from them.
Start a business – Many of you might have heard about online business. If one is planning to start a small business, one can easily do so with the internet.

A good speech on the internet will include both advantages and disadvantages. You already what the advantages are; now, let us look at some of the disadvantages of the internet.

Overuse – One of the disadvantages is overuse. The internet has always attracted more and more people from the time of its existence. The pandemic just elevated this situation. With the introduction of online classes, students got to use their phones for a longer time, which in turn, increased their screen hours. This is true in the case of adults as well.
Loss of creativity and imagination – With the internet giving answers to every question people have and giving ideas for any topic, the creative and imaginative intellect of children and adults alike have drastically dropped. Most often, it is not being used at all.

The internet has, for sure, opened doors to multiple possibilities. It has a lot that can teach you about anything and everything under the sun. It is in the hands of the users to use it wisely and beneficially, without causing any harm to the others.

Frequently Asked Questions on Speech on Internet

Who invented the internet.

The internet was first invented by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf.

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

What does freedom of speech mean in the internet era?

More than two-thirds of the world is using the internet, a lot. Image: REUTERS/Fred Prouser

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} John Letzing

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Media, Entertainment and Sport is affecting economies, industries and global issues

A hand holding a looking glass by a lake

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, media, entertainment and sport.

The US Supreme Court is weighing in on whether social media sites can be compelled to include all viewpoints no matter how objectionable.
The high court’s decision could have a broad impact on how the internet is experienced.
Its deliberations raise questions about regulation, freedom of speech and what makes for a healthy and equitable online existence.

In 1996, a man in South Africa locked himself into a glass cubicle and mostly limited his contact with the outside world to an internet connection for a few months . “The exciting aspect is realizing just how similar we all are in this growing global village,” he gushed to a reporter on the verge of his release.

What was an oddball stunt 28 years ago now verges on a rough description of daily existence. When Richard Weideman locked himself into that cubicle to stare at a screen all day, only about 1% of the global population was online, and social media was mostly limited to the 5,000 or so members of the WELL, an early virtual community. Now, more than two-thirds of the world is using the internet, a lot – and the global village is not in great shape .

The US Supreme Court is currently attempting to sort out exactly how internet discourse should be experienced. Are YouTube, Facebook and TikTok places where top-down decisions should continue to be made on what to publish and what to exclude? Or, are they more akin to a postal service that’s obliged to convey all views, no matter how unseemly?

By weighing in on two state laws mandating that kind of forced inclusion, the high court could end up ensuring free expression by erasing editorial guardrails – and the average scroll through social media might never be quite the same. A decision is expected by June .

This potential inflection point comes as just about everyone and their grandparents are now very online. Not participating doesn’t seem like an option anymore. “The modern public square” is one way to describe it. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court have surfaced other analogies , like a book shop, or a parade.

Excluding people from marching in your parade might seem unfair. But, it's your parade.

As more people get online, the desire to govern discourse has increased.

More than a century ago, a Supreme Court justice made his own analogy : speech that doesn’t merit protection is the type that creates a clear and present danger, like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

“Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater” has since become a shopworn way to describe anything deemed to cross the free-speech line.

As it turns out, falsely shouting “fire” in crowded places had actually been a real thing that people did in the years before it showed up in a Supreme Court opinion. In 1911, at an opera house in the state of Pennsylvania, it resulted in dozens of people people being fatally crushed; another incident two years later in Michigan killed far more.

More recently, social media services banned certain political messaging because they believed it had also fatally incited people under false pretenses.

Those bans prompted reactive laws in Florida and Texas, triggering the current Supreme Court proceeding. The Texas legislation prohibits social media companies with big audiences from barring users over their viewpoints. The broader Florida law also forbids such deplatforming, and zeroes in on the practice of shadow banning .

That particular form of surreptitious censoring isn’t confined to the US, even if many popular social media services are headquartered there. The EU’s Digital Services Act, approved in 2022, is meant to prohibit shadow banning. In India, users trying to broach touchy subjects online have alleged that it’s happened. And in Mexico, some critics have actually advocated for more shadow banning of criminal cartels.

‘A euphemism for censorship’

In 1969, computer scientists in California established the first network connection via the precursor to the modern internet. They managed to send the initial two letters of a five-letter message from a refrigerator-sized machine at the University of California, Los Angeles, before the system crashed. Things progressed quickly from there.

In 2006, Google blew a lot of minds by paying nearly $1.7 billion for YouTube – an astounding price for something widely considered a repository for pirated content and cat videos.

By 2019, YouTube was earning a bit more than $15 billion in ad revenue annually, and had a monthly global audience of 2 billion users. It’s now at the crux of a debate with far-reaching implications; if the Florida and Texas laws are upheld by the Supreme Court, the site would likely have a much harder time barring hateful content, if it could at all.

That might be just fine for some people. One Supreme Court justice wondered during oral arguments whether the content moderation currently employed by YouTube and others is just “a euphemism for censorship.”

In some ways, we’ve already had at least a partial test run of unleashing a broader range of views on a social media channel. When it was still called Twitter, the site banned political ads due to concerns about spreading misinformation, and even banned a former US president. Now, as “X,” it’s reinstated both .

According to one recent analysis , X’s political center of gravity shifted notably after coming under new ownership in late 2022, mostly by design . The response has been mixed; sharp declines in downloads of the app and usage have been reported.

Richard Weideman, self-made captive of the internet circa 1996.

Government intervention to force that kind of recalibration, or to mandate any kind of content moderation decisions, would likely be unpopular. X, for example, has challenged a law passed in California in 2022 requiring social media companies to self-report the moderation decisions they’re making. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called that law an informal censorship scheme .

Pundits seem skeptical that the Supreme Court will let the state laws requiring blanket viewpoint inclusion stand. During oral arguments, the court’s chief justice asked whether the government should really be forcing a "modern public square" run by private companies to publish anything. An attorney suggested the result might be so disruptive that, at least until they can figure out how to best proceed, some sites might consider narrowing their focus to “nothing but content about puppies.”

Workarounds are already available to some people who feel overlooked online. Starting an entirely new social media site of their own, for example . Or, if they happen to be among the richest people in the world, maybe buying one that’s already gained a huge audience.

Neither option is very realistic for most of us. And there may be a legitimate case to be made that ubiquitous platforms do sometimes unfairly marginalize certain voices.

(It's also possible that “content about puppies” would be preferable to what’s often available now).

Ultimately, no sweeping legal remedy may be at hand. Instead, we'll likely remain in an uneasy middle ground that only becomes more bewildering as artificial intelligence spreads – mostly relying on algorithm-induced familiarity , maybe wondering if it’s social-media ineptitude or shadow banning that’s keeping us from getting the attention we deserve, and not infrequently stepping out of our online comfort zone to steal a glimpse of something jarring.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Industries in Depth .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Top 5 countries leading the sustainable tourism sector

Robot rock stars, pocket forests, and the battle for chips - Forum podcasts you should hear this month

Robin Pomeroy and Linda Lacina

April 29, 2024

Agritech: Shaping Agriculture in Emerging Economies, Today and Tomorrow

Confused about AI? Here are the podcasts you need on artificial intelligence

Robin Pomeroy

April 25, 2024

Which technologies will enable a cleaner steel industry?

Daniel Boero Vargas and Mandy Chan

Industry government collaboration on agritech can empower global agriculture

Abhay Pareek and Drishti Kumar

April 23, 2024

Title: The future of free speech on the internet

Members of the Georgetown community joined the McCourt School’s Tech & Public Policy program for a discussion about the future of free speech on the internet with social media advocate and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reviewed what could be a landmark case for the tech industry — Gonzalez v. Google LLC. The case focuses on whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability for hosting and moderating user content.

The McCourt School of Public Policy’s Tech & Public Policy (TPP) program hosted social media advocate and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen for a discussion on the impact SCOTUS’s ruling on this and several other cases could have on the future of the internet.

Frances Haugen and Michelle DeMooy speaking in Riggs Library

Following an introduction from Tech & Public Policy Fellow Rachel Bogdan (MPP-E’24), TPP program Director Michelle De Mooy and Haugen focused first on the harms of social media.

When analyzing the data on teenage mental health and social media, Haugen found that “people who were socially isolated were the most negatively impacted by social media because they had no other interactions or information sources outside of what they were seeing online.” Her organization Beyond the Screen contends that “places that have more community fabric —parks, community centers, fraternal orders, coffee shops, bars — have healthier people because individuals have another network for coming to a consensus on reality.”

“Social media silos,” or communities that are dominated by a single point of view, are at the core of Gonzalez v. Google LLC, as the plaintiffs argue that Google, through its subsidiary YouTube, violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, promoting the group’s videos through its recommendation algorithm.

Creating impactful change in the United States

While European regulators are debating the application of the Digital Service Act (DSA), which aims to create a safer digital spaces where the fundamental rights of users are protected and to establish a level playing field for businesses, United States lawmakers have not been able to create impactful change in this area for more than two decades.

Haugen attributed this struggle to “a lack of muscle in the tech policy space,” as students across the country are often unable to take college-level courses on this subject matter and are therefore unable to advocate effectively for change.

Haugen added that, “as it stands, any algorithm built with the data we have today would not have enough information to remove all of the harmful content on the internet without taking down an equal, if not greater, amount of safe content.” She continues to call for increased transparency from internet platforms and said that “organizations focusing on building decentralized platforms, such as Project Liberty , allow for greater content sharing…and therefore better public safety practices.”

According to the National Institutes of Health, 15% of children in the U.S. between the ages of 12 and 17 report having at least one depressive episode each year, and 35% of U.S. children in this same age group report being on at least one of the five major social media platforms at least once a day. Haugen believes that social media exposure has forced children to “commodify themselves” from a young age, lessening their ability to learn about the world without judgment.

“A kid who has always had to think of themselves as a product never got a chance to relax and become themselves, and we are seeing the impact of that in the declining mental health of young people.” Frances Haugen

While the future of the internet and its regulation are uncertain, Haugen urged students “to believe that there is a way to make the internet a safer place.”

“New communication platforms are always disruptive,” she said, “but every single time before, we have learned and we have adapted, and we have come out stronger.”

To stay up to date on events and news from McCourt’s Tech & Public Policy program sign up for our newsletter .

Tech & Public Policy

3 Minute Speech on Internet in English for Students

Good Morning everyone, Today I am going to share my views on the topic “Internet .”

Internet is a very important part of today’s life,not only professionally but in all day to day activities, without it we can’t even imagine our survival. Almost every person uses the internet for different purposes like students use it for academic purposes .

There are many benefits of using the internet. One of the major benefits of using the internet is that it provides vast amounts of information. You can find any type of information on the internet very easily. Internet has made everything easy and possible for human beings.

We can connect globally with people all around the world with the help of the internet. It has made the life of human beings very easy and comfortable. We should use it in the right way for attaining its most benefits.

Random Phrase Generator [English]
Common Conversational Phrases in English [List of 939]
How to Paraphrase and What are the Best Paraphrasing Tools for Students: A Guide
How Does Homework Help You Be Smarter?
Michael Poem by William Wordsworth Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
Random Ability Generator Pokemon

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

ReadingJunction

Ultimate hub of educational content (Essay, Speech, Debate, Festivals, Events)

Speech on Internet for Students and Children in 900+ Words

August 9, 2020 by ReadingJunction 1 Comment

In this article, you will read a Speech on Internet for Students and Children in 900+ Words.

Speech on Internet for Students and Children (900+ Words)

A very warm welcome to everyone and present here. Respected principal, teachers, members and my dear friends . I am very thankful for getting this wonderful chance to allow me to deliver a speech on the topic “Internet.” Please have your patience and render your ears to hear me till the end.

The Internet is a group of networks which connect people all over the world. The internet was developed by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The first connection was ARPANET, which was connected on October 1,1969. The worldwide Web is the most popular service, which was created in Switzerland in 1990 by Tim Berners Lee.

As we all know that the world is growing rapidly in technology. One of the most advancements of technology is the internet.

The internet has been used worldwide. It helps us in many ways like sending and receiving mails, connecting people from all over the world, getting information from worldwide, getting to know people from everywhere, etc. We use the internet for every small and big scale, and through this we can have the world at our fingertip.

The internet has both negative and positive roles in human life.

The advantage is that it helps to connect people from all around and helps to share their feelings like Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, etc.
It helps in providing education. It also helps in getting to know more about the things which you do not know.
We can also do multitasking things like we can do any project or any assignment, or just listen to the music online.

Nowadays, we find making best use of their study curriculum through the internet tools like the Google classroom.

The Internet helps in online shopping through e-commerce sites like Myntra, Snapdeal, Amazon, etc.
We can also pay online money, transfer it through paytm, Google Pay, Internet Banking, Phone Pay, PayPal, etc.
If someone gets bored, he/she can entertain himself through movies, serials, comedy, and many more through Amazon prime, YouTube, Hotstar, Netflix, etc.
One can also watch news online, and can also go for video calls, chat and talk to them through Google duo.
We can book tickets for the bus, train, and aeroplane through online.

Apart from seeing a lot of many helpful effects the internet brings, we are also cursed with a few of its disadvantages too.

It is good to use the internet but the youth are using it more which is wasting their valuable time.

Anyone using the Internet can be fooled and hacked.
Hacking has become common on Facebook and many other social media.
Students are more attached to mobile because of the internet.
They study less and waste much of their time on the internet.
They are very excited to know new people and interact with them.
They also watch online movies, play online games , etc.

Nowadays pubg, freefire, ludo, etc have become top list in playing. Students are very much using the internet. It’s very harmful for the eyes.

Few more disadvantages of Internet are:

Addiction and distraction from studies occur in every student’s life.
Depression, loneliness, social isolation also occur because of the internet.
Anyone can easily fool you, and you can also easily believe anyone.
This is very dangerous and can destroy anyone’s life.

I guess we all should be careful while using the internet and should keep all personal and professional information limited so that no one can do anything wrong.

Hackers want to know about you so do not share all your information in social media. There is setting in every phone, both for the web browser and mobile operating systems. Make sure that you have to enable the privacy settings.

I must suggest that before downloading anything from the Web, be sure that it is safe and no hacking will take place. Choose a strong password so that it will be safe and no one can hack.

Whenever you purchase anything online, you need to provide credit card or bank account information, so be careful as this is what the cyber criminals are most eager to look for. So apply all this information only to the safe and secure sites.

I must say that parents should be very careful in advising their children on the internet. They should teach them both the good and bad of the internet. They should provide mobile to them in need, else the children will be addicted to using the phone and start using it for long hours wasting all their time.

Friends also play a very great role in using the internet. If a child starts using the internet for more than required time, he/she will attract their friends and make them eager to use it. So, everyone should use the Internet and make themselves for limited use over it.

Students should know the benefit of their studies and be serious about it so that they will be less addicted towards mobile and internet. The Internet is very much useful and important for everyone’s life.

Everyone knows how to use it, however they don’t know how much to use, so they should use it less and give more time to themselves and other valuable things or activities.

So by saying all this, I would like to end my speech by thanking everyone for listening to me patiently. Finally, I want to request all not to use the internet in excess, rather than give more time to studies and other social activities. Thank you.

Reader Interactions

January 4, 2022 at 11:59 pm

a very nice speech from you .

Copyright Protection

All articles on this website are Copyright Protected. Copying or Using any material in any form is a serious offense.

Important Links

Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Jason Kelce Defends Kylie Kelce From Internet Trolls After Harrison Butker’s ‘Homemaker’ Speech

By Emily Tannenbaum

Jason Kelce appears to be done joking about Harrison Butker’s misogynistic commencement speech .

Following Jason Kelce's tepid criticism of the speech on his New Heights podcast , the recently retired NFL player says he’s seen “a number of people” describe his wife, Kylie Kelce , as a homemaker. One internet troll, in particular, had a problem with Jason’s stance that “not everybody has to be a homemaker if that’s not what they want to do,” calling him “hypocritical” for not supporting the Kansas City Chiefs kicker.

Jason and Kylie Kelce have been married for six years and share three young daughters. Aside from her roles as a wife and mother, she’s also a high school field hockey coach and raises funds for nonprofits like (Be)Philly and the Eagles Autism Foundation .

“I don’t think of Kylie as a homemaker,” Kelce responded to the anonymous X.com user on May 27. “I think of her as my wife. I think of her as a mother. She has an occupation, as do I, and we keep our house the best we can. Our marriage is a partnership; we are equals who are figuring it out on the daily. The only expectation is that we love each other, support one another, and are committed to our family, that comes first.”

Jason went on to defend his wife from claims that their home is “dirty and messy,” which the anonymous poster implied was Kylie’s responsibility. “We both raise our kids, we both work, we both keep our home,” the athlete wrote.“It is both our faults it is messy, but such is life with 3 young children, busy schedules, and neither of us being neat freaks.”

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

Earlier this month, Butker came under fire for telling Benedictine College graduates that women have been fed “diabolical lies” about their roles in society while denouncing birth control, IVF, and other methods of family planning. He also quoted Taylor Swift , though he chose to refer to the pop star as “my teammate’s girlfriend.”

As expected, Travis Kelce responded to the speech in the following episode of his New Heights podcast with his brother, Jason Kelce. While the tight end described Butker as a “great person and a great teammate,” he said he doesn’t agree with “just about any” of the views expressed in the speech.

And he even dragged Taylor Swift into it.

By Stephanie McNeal

Jason Kelce, meanwhile, didn’t seem to understand the intensity of the backlash. “Make no mistake about it, a lot of the things he said in his commencement speech are not things that I align myself with,” he said. “But, you know, he’s giving a commencement speech at a Catholic university and, shocker , it ended up being a very religious and Catholic speech.”

The 36-year-old went on to admit that he “didn’t get what the whole fuss was about,” suggesting people who disagree with the kicker should just ignore him. “If my daughters listen to anybody tell them what to do, that they should be homemakers, then I’ve failed as a dad,” he said, later adding, “If you don’t like what somebody says, all you gotta do is say, ‘Yeah that guy’s a fucking idiot,’ and then you move on.”

To close out the subject, he brought Kylie into the discourse. “Obviously, my wife, you know, she was I think a little bit frustrated with some of the comments,” he said, before joking, “Initially I said, ‘Listen, you’re going to need to go back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. I’m listening to the game right now.’”

Though Jason maintains that Kylie makes “a mean sandwich,” his most recent post should clear up any confusion about their relationship. “If being a homemaker, works for some, and that’s what they want, then hell yea, that’s awesome, more power to you,” he concluded. “I want to be clear, I’m not downplaying that at all, but that is not our family dynamic.”

Miranda Derrick Shares Her First Post Since the ‘7M TikTok Cult’ Doc Was Released

By Elizabeth Logan

Miranda Derrick’s New Post May Be a Subtle Response to Dancing for the Devil

While Jason Kelce’s staunch defense of his wife is certainly heartwarming, it’s worth noting that emboldening misogynists was exactly “what all the fuss was about” to begin with.

The field hockey coach and former student athlete is teaming up with Dove ahead of Super Bowl Sunday.

By Ariana Yaptangco

By Kathleen Walsh

My Secret Paris
Off-Beat & Little Known
Paris Like a Local
Unique Hotels
Art & Design Awesomeness
Desirable Digs
Indie Shopper
Movie / Music / Book Junkie
People / Icons / Muses
Teeny Tiny Stuff
Comedic Therapy
Conversation Starters
Fashion for Dummies
Foodaholics anonymous
How to start a subculture
Internet Scrapbook
Forget Paris
Lost & Found
Obscure history
Time travel
Destination Directory A-Z
Weekend & City Guides
Collector’s Corner
Paris Restaurant Guide
New York Restaurant Guide
KEYHOLDER LOGIN
Work With Us

13 Things I Found on the Internet Today (Vol. 698)

1. Painter of bugs, Jan van Kessel the Elder

Found on Gods and Foolish Grandeur .

2. Someone’s 94-year-old grandmother has kept a list of every book she ever read since she was 14 years old

An archive of one person’s mind over nearly a century. Find more pages from the list on this amazing Twitter Thread .

3. Owls on the Prowl

Pupils Dressed as Owls, Their Schools Insignia. Manchester Grammar School, UK, 1920s.

Found on Bad Moodboard .

4. This Autochrome portrait of Jean Paris, a chemical engineer, in the laboratory of the Lumière factory in Monplaisir, c. 1907

Found here .

5. All the delicious Typography of the Portuguese Fish Tin Museum

Browse more on the Conservas du Portugal , found via Present & Correct .

6. Louisiana’s Louis XV Tower

In the heart of Louisiana, the antiques dealer Robert E. Smith ’s home — a Louis XV fever dream — is surrounded by a moat and fronted by a pair of 300-year-old giant live oak trees. The 66-foot-high, five-story, sanded-concrete tower, which sits on 13 acres, features one large room per floor, connected via a steep wooden spiral staircase that moves you from the ground-floor guest room to the entry-level dining area to the third-floor bedroom, up to the salon on the fourth floor and finally to the rooftop terrace, with its daybed dramatically shrouded in mosquito netting. Although the building is square, its rooms are octagonal, precisely 548 square feet each, with the mechanicals and bathrooms tucked behind the plaster and boiserie walls. Every item — brocade sofas, velvet upholstered chairs, metal hinges, parquet de Versailles floors — is period perfect; Smith will brook no interruption of his rococo illusion.

Find the full New York Times Style Magazine article here .

Discover Robert E. Smith ‘s world on Instagram here .

7. Bolivia’s Palacio de Sal Hotel (constructed entirely of salt)

Located at the edge of the world’s largest salt flat (Salar de Uyuni), is constructed entirely of salt. The floor, walls, ceiling, beds, tables, chairs, and sculptures are all made of salt. There is a rule prohibiting guests from licking the walls.

Visit the hotel’s website here .

8. Meet Harriet Eckerson from Encampment, Wyoming, 1929

Photo by Lora Webb Nichols. Found on Vintage America Uncovered .

9. The Courtesan’s Smile

Smiling Girl / Courtesan Holding an Obscene Image, by Gerrit van Honthorst, 1625. The model holds an image of a naked woman, perhaps the model herself, covering her face and captioned in Dutch “ Wie kent mĳn naers van Afteren ” (Who can recognize my backside from behind?). The small image likely advertises her services, as this was a common practice in the sex industry of the time.

Found on Gods & Foolish Grandeur .

10. Early Androids and Artificial Speech

Centuries before audio deepfakes and text-to-speech software, inventors in the eighteenth century constructed androids with swelling lungs, flexible lips, and moving tongues to simulate human speech. Jessica Riskin explores the history of such talking heads, from their origins in musical automata to inventors’ quixotic attempts to make machines pronounce words, converse, and declare their love.

Read the article on Public Domain Review .

11. Olden day equivalent of having multiple tabs open – easy access to 7 open books at once

Found on Mildly Interesting .

12. The U.S. Army’s 1st & only ever bicycle division, the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps in 1897

In June of 1897, the all-black company of the 25th Mobile Infantry, under command of a white lieutenant and accompanied by a medic and a journalist, embarked on a journey across America’s heartland — from Fort Missoula, Montana, to St. Louis, Missouri — to “test most thoroughly the bicycle as a means of transportation for troops.”

The division disbanded the same year. Found on Gear Junkie .

13. All of these interviews of Artists in their Lofts are worth a watch

The filmmaker’s book is out now .

FROM THE ARCHIVES

messynessychic

Editor's Picks
Inspiration Vault
Life is Messy

Forgot your password?

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.

Back to login

Last Updated on June 3, 2024 by MessyNessy

Joe Biden 'Sleeping' During Memorial Day Speech Raises Questions

A video appearing to show President Biden with his eyes shut for an extended period during a Memorial Day event on Monday has been widely shared on social media, with conservative activists alleging he was sleeping during an address by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin .

Biden commemorated Memorial Day at the Arlington National Cemetery on Monday where he laid a wreath by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as part of an annual show of respect.

Ahead of their likely presidential rematch in November, Donald Trump , 77, has focused heavily on the cognitive faculties of 81-year-old Biden, branding him "sleepy Joe." However, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee himself has been accused of falling asleep during his ongoing hush money trial in Manhattan, though he strongly denied this on his Truth Social website.

On X (formerly Twitter ), a number of conservative-leaning accounts shared a 48-second clip in which an unknown person zooms in on Biden during television coverage of the Memorial Day event. An unidentified woman's voice can be heard saying: "Look Biden's sleeping. His eyes have been closed for about 30 seconds."

The woman asks: "Do you think the media are going to use this?" The voice then says: "He's going to drool—wake up Biden!"

The footage was shared on X by several accounts including '1776,' an account that has an early design of the American flag and an artist's flattering impression of Trump as its cover photo.

Along with the video, the '1776' account wrote : "The amount of c*** Trump got about sitting in court, we will never see this in the media, this guy is sleeping in Memorial Day. Unreal [angry face emoji]."

The post went viral, receiving more than 6,000 reposts, 13,000 likes, and 262,000 views on X.

Newsweek contacted the White House press office and representatives of Joe Biden 's 2024 presidential election campaign for comment by email outside of usual business hours.

The X account of Graham Allen, a conservative social media commentator with over 410,000 followers on the platform, also shared the footage, writing : "Joe Biden was literally sleeping during a MEMORIAL DAY ceremony. DISGUSTING."

This post was also widely shared receiving over 3,700 reposts and 409,000 views.

Ian Miles Cheong, a popular conservative commentator with over one million X followers, also posted the video, adding : "Biden fell asleep at the Memorial Day address. What in the world is wrong with him?"

However, another X user, who claimed to be in Virginia, hit back in the comments replying : "Trump had tiny energy after sleeping in court all week during the day."

Speaking at the Arlington National Cemetery, Biden paid tribute to America's war dead who he said were "bound by a common commitment not to a place, not to a person, not to a president, but to an idea—the idea of the United States of America."

The president said: "Freedom has never been guaranteed. Every generation has had to earn it, fight for it, defend it in the battle between autocracy and democracy, between the greed of a few and the rights of many."

On Truth Social, Trump posted a Memorial Day message in which he took aim at E. Jean Carroll , a magazine writer who a New York court concluded the former president sexually assaulted at a Manhattan department store, then defamed after she spoke out.

He said: "Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn't count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for 'DEFAMATION.'"

Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll by a New York City jury in 2023 and ordered to pay $5 million in damages. He was later instructed to pay Carroll a further $83.3 million after a court concluded he had continued defaming her. Both verdicts are being appealed by Trump who denies any wrongdoing.

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

US President Joe Biden speaks at the 156th National Memorial Day observance at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, May 27, 2024. Conservative commentators on X shared video which they claimed showed Biden falling asleep at the event.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event | Philadelphia, PA

Girard College Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2:17 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, Philadelphia. (Applause.) Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

I want to thank Robert Nix for your leadership and for those very kind words and all you do for our country.

And I want to thank all the incredible leaders who are here with us today, in particular our young leaders. It is so good to see you all. (Applause.)

I also want to thank the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are with us this afternoon. (Applause.)

And, everyone else, thank you for being here.

So, in 2020, Black voters in Philadelphia and across our nation helped President Biden and me win the White House. (Applause.) Yes, you did. And in 2024, with your voice and your power, we will win again. (Applause.)

Philadelphia, in Joe Biden, we have a fighter; a leader with skill, vision, determination, and compassion; a leader who keeps his promises.

As a candidate for president, Joe Biden gave his word that we would fight to address some of the biggest issues facing the Black community, and we have delivered. (Applause.)

In 2020, Joe Biden and I vowed that we would lower the cost of healthcare, like insulin.

For far too many years, too many of our seniors with diabetes had to make the awful decision about either filling their prescription or paying their rent, and Black Americans are 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. So, we capped the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. (Applause.)

And under Joe Biden’s leadership, finally, we took on Big Pharma and finally gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices. (Applause.)

We also took on the issue of debt, which makes so many people feel like they can never get ahead.

Take, for example, medical debt. We are now making it so medical debt can no longer be included on your credit score — (applause) — so that medical debt cannot impact a person’s ability to get a car loan, an apartment lease, or a home loan. (Applause.)

In 2020, we promised to forgive student loan debt. (Applause.)

Do I see people testifying? (Laughs.) Can I get a witness? (Laughs.)

And I’ll tell you, I — I have a unique position as Vice President to spend a lot of time with our president. And on this subject, I remember sitting in the Oval Office with our president, Joe Biden, shortly after the United States Supreme Court struck down our initial plan to forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt.

AUDIENCE: Booo —

THE VICE PRESIDENT: A different leader — a different kind of leader would have thrown in the towel. Not Joe Biden. (Applause.) Not Joe Biden.

And I’m going to tell you what he said that day. I’m going to tell you what he said that day: “This is not over.” (Applause.)

So, we kept fighting. And so far, we have forgiven over $165 billion in student loan debt for over 5 million Americans. (Applause.) On average, more than 30 dollar — $30,000 per person and $70,000 for our public servants, like nurses, firefighters, and teachers. (Applause.)

In 2020, we promised to take on the issue of the epidemic of gun violence, knowing that today, in America, gun violence is the number-one cause of the death of the children of America — not car accidents, not cancer — gun violence.

We took on the issue knowing Black Americans are 10 times as likely to be the victim of gun homicide.

And I’ll tell you, I have personally held too many hands of mothers and fathers as I attempted to comfort them after their child was killed by gun violence.

So, to address this crisis, under the President’s leadership, we passed the first major gun safety law in nearly 30 years — (applause) — a bipartisan law to strengthen background checks.

And, again, I sat in the Oval Office with the President, where he sat down with Democrats and Republicans and appealed to their better selves. And that’s why, for the first time in 30 years, it happened as a bipartisan deal.

We created the first White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which I lead and has now invested $1 billion to hire mental health — (applause) — mental health counselors in public schools to help heal the mental trauma of gun violence.

And, Philadelphia, in all of our work, the President has been guided by a fundamental belief: We work for you, the American people — (applause) — not the special interests, not the billionaires or the big corporations, but the people.

And in November, all the victories we have won and everything we fight for every day is on the line.

You know, Donald Trump once asked Black Americans — I’m going to quote, excuse the language — “What the hell do you have to lose from a Trump presidency?” And sadly, we all know too well.

When he was president, Donald Trump tried over and over to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and to take healthcare, then, from millions of Black Americans.

Year after year, he proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare so that so many of our seniors would be deprived on what they rely on to live with dignity.

And then he handpicked three members of the United States Supreme Court — the court of Thurgood —

THE VICE PRESIDENT: — with the intention that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. And as he intended, they did.

And today, one in three women and more than half of Black women of reproductive age live in a state with an abortion ban — a Trump abortion ban. And if he wins a second term, I promise you: He’s going to go even further.

So, all of this is to say, who sits in the White House matters. It matters for — (applause) — it matters for the people of America and for people around the world.

As vice president, I’ve now met with over 150 world leaders: presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings. And I cannot tell you how many times one of those leaders has pulled me aside and talked about how much the world relies on us and on Joe Biden’s leadership — (applause) — his defense of democracy, his commitment to the ideals of freedom and liberty and equality, and his willingness to fight for these ideals.

And as the people of Pennsylvania know, our president does not only know how to fight, he knows how to win. (Applause.)

We beat Donald Trump once, and we going to beat him again. (Applause.)

And now it is my honor to introduce our President, Joe Biden. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Philadelphia! (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

It’s good — it’s good to be —

THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) It’s good to be almost home. (Applause.) I just live down the road a little bit.

Thank you, Kamala, for your partnership. And it is a partnership. And how about another round of applause for our great Vice President. Isn’t she something else? (Applause.)

It’s great to see so many friends, including my fellow Scrantonian Senator Bobby Casey. Bobby, where are — where are you? (Applause.) There you are. There you are.

Mayor Parker; Lieutenant Governor Davis — (applause); and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Steve Horsford — (applause); and members of the CBC who are here tonight, I’m a — if I introduced everybody, I’ll be here all night.

But, look, while he couldn’t be here, we’re thinking of our dear friend Congressman Dwight Evans. He’s recovering. And he’s going to recover. He’s doing well. (Applause.)

And joining us are so many state and local officials from across the country, including a guy for my father’s hometown, where he was born, Baltimore, Maryland. They say it down in Baltimore, not Baltimore. (Pronounced in an accent.) I want to — I want to introduce you to the mayor of — the mayor — the governor of the great state of Maryland. Where are you, Gov? (Applause.)

In case you haven’t noticed, he looks like he can still play too. (Laughter.) It’s great to be with you, Gov.

Civil rights and community leaders from all across the country.

Folks, if anyone wothers — wonders whether their vote matters, remember this: Because Black America voted in 2020, I’m —

Please, have — have a seat, if you can, if you have a seat.

Because Black Americans voted, Kamala and I are President and Vice President of the United States — because of you. That’s not hyperbole. Because you voted, Donald Trump is a defeated former president. (Applause.)

And with your vote — with your vote in 2024, we’re going to make Donald Trump a loser again. (Applause.)

In 2020 and throughout my career — I know a lot of Philadelphians know this because I got so much help when I was running for the Senate in Delaware from Philly — Black voters placed enormous faith in me. I’ve tried to do my best to honor that trust, staying true to the value set that we share — it got me involved as a kid in the first place: Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, faith and family are everything, and we leave no one behind. (Applause.)

But, folks, I know it’s natural to wonder if democracy — the democracy you hear about actually works for you. When justice is denied, how can it be working for you? When promises are broken, how can it be working for you? When you have to be 10 times better than everyone else to get the same shot, how can it be working for you?

I get it. And I know there’s a lot of misinformation out there. So, I came today to speak the truth — (applause) — the truth about promises made and promises kept.

Do you remember when the pandemic hit — when 20 million people were out of work, when businesses and schools shut down, emergency rooms were overwhelmed, and Black folks were hit harder than anyone? When Trump was president, he said — and he said this — he took responsibility for none of it — said, “It’s none of my responsibility.”

When I came into office, I promised we’d do everything we can to get us through that pandemic. And that’s what we did. That, folks, was a promise made and a promise kept. (Applause.)

I promised to put racial equality at the center of everything I do because I vowed I would have an administration that looked like America. Because you voted, we’re invested more money than ever in the Black families and communities. A promise made and a promise kept.

I promised we’d start to reconnect Black and brown and overlooked neighborhoods cut off by highways in the ‘60s and decades of disinvestment as a consequence of it, including here in Philly. But we’re — changed that with the Recovery Act of — with the — in the — right now you see all the construction going on on the highways around here. A promise made and a promise kept. (Applause.)

Look, I said I’d remove every lead pipe in America so every child can drink clean water without fear of brain damage. We’re doing it. A promise made and a promise kept. (Applause.)

I promised we’d also take the most significant action on environmental justice ever to remove the legacy of pollution that smothers fence-line communities, because every child, every American deserves to breathe clean and fresh air. We’re doing it. A promise made and a promise kept. (Applause.)

I promised to access affordable high-speed Internet because now Internet is just as important as it was in the days of Franklin Roosevelt — electricity was generations ago. We’re delivering now because no child should have to do their homework at McDonald’s when things are shut down, sit in the parking lot with their parent to get it done. Another promise made and another promise kept.

I promised to protect your healthcare. I protected and expanded the Affordable Healthcare Act that was Obamacare — is still Obamacare — (applause) — saving — saving millions of Americans an additional $800 a year in premiums.

And, folks, the Affordable Care Act is still a big deal. (Applause.)

As Kamala just explained, senators with — debated this, but we finally got it done — we debated — seniors with diabetes are now paying $35 for insulin instead of $400. I’m determined to make that apply to every American, not just seniors, in the second term. (Applause.)

We’re capping — the bill we’ve already passed, we capped total out-of-pocket costs for drugs for seniors beginning next year at $2,000 a year total, exclud- — including cancer drugs that cost $10-, $12-, $14,000 a year. You pay no more than $2,000 a year. (Applause.) A promise made and a promise kept.

And, by the way, it not only saves people money, it saves the taxpayers — guess what? — $160 billion cut in the def- — because Medicare doesn’t have to pay those exorbitant prices. (Applause.)

Folks, one of the reasons I got started and won the first time and subsequent times in Delaware is because of the best HBCU in America, Delaware State. (Applause.) Kamala — Kamala says it’s some school down in Washington. (Laughter.)

Anyway, HBCUs are incredible institutions, but they don’t have the same endowments as other universities to fund research centers and do so much more. Because you voted, I kept my commitment, and we’re investing $16 billion — (applause) — the most ever in the history of America — $16 billion. It will grow America. It will save America money. A promise made and a promise kept.

I’m keeping my promises that no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana. (Applause.) I pardoned thousands of people incarcerated for the mere possession of marijuana — thousands. A promise made and a promise kept. And for — their records should be expunged as well, I might add. (Applause.)

Folks, it wasn’t easy to get a lot of this done. In fact, obstacles every step of the way, we faced. For example, Senate Republicans blocked the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. But it didn’t stop me from signing a historic executive order requiring key elements of that bill for federal enforcement. That is banning choke holds, greatly restricting no-knock warrants, creating databases for police misconduct, and so much more. (Applause.) But we’re still — and we did it with the support of George Floyd’s family, and we’re going to finally get it all done. A promise made and a promise kept.

I promised we’d beat the NRA. And we did. (Applause.) As Kamala mentioned, I signed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. A promise made and a promise kept.

And, by the way, I’m going to go back and once again ban assault weapons in America. (Applause.) I did it once; I’ll do it again.

The Supreme Court blocked me from relieving student debt, but they didn’t stop me.

So far, I’ve relieved student debt for nearly 5 million Americans — (applause) — a significant number are Black borrowers — so you can chase your dreams, start a family, buy a first home, start a business, and so much more.

And guess what? It grows the economy. It strengthens the economy.

I’m going to keep it going. A promise made is a promise kept.

But we’re — speaking of the —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: — speaking of the courts, because you voted, I was able to keep my commitment to appoint the first Black woman on the United States Supreme Court — (applause) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. A promise made and a promise kept.

And I appointed more Black women to the federal circuit courts than every other president in American history combined. (Applause.) Every single president combined.

And overall, we’ve appointed 200 Black judges to the federal — I mean, judges to the federal bench.

And guess what? The next president — they’re going to be able to appoint a couple of justices, and I’ll be damned if they’re not going to — (applause) —

Look, if, in fact, we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in re- — really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life when jus- — Trump justices are already gutting voting rights, overturning Roe, decimating affirmative action, and so much more. Are we going to let that happen? We can’t.

AUDIENCE: Noo —

THE PRESIDENT: No, we — we really can’t.

Now, let’s talk about Trump’s MAGA lies. I don’t have an hour, but (inaudible) it. (Laughter.)

Trump takes credit for sending all the pandemic relief checks alone. It’s a lie. The truth is the Congressional Black Caucus got that money passed. (Applause.)

And when Kamala and I came to office, with the help of the CBC, passed legislation to deliver more checks in the pockets to millions of Americans, including Black Americans — $1,400 checks from the American Rescue Plan we passed, and then $300 a month per child per family through the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half for Black families. (Applause.) And I’m going to get it reinstated in the second term.

Folks, Trump continues to lie by saying Black unemployment was at a record low on his watch. The fact is the record low unemployment happened on my watch, and we’re going to keep it going. (Applause.)

Black small businesses are starting up at a faster rate in 30 years because of what we’ve done. The racial wea- — wealth gap is the lowest it’s been in 20 years because of our efforts. A promise made and a promise kept.

I announced signif- — the most significant housing plan in 50 years that includes first-time homebuyer’s tax credit, building millions of affordable housing to bring rents down. New data shows a 40 percent cut in the gap between home appraisals in majority white communities versus those of color — in communities of color.

You know, the same exact builder on av- — either — on either side of 95, build the same houses — if it’s a Black community, it’s lower — the value, from the very day it’s built, ends up being lower than the exact same house across the highway in the white community.

We’re doing everything we can to right that wrong.

And guess what? We’re talking on corporate greed — (applause) — to bring down the price of gas, food, and rent; eliminating junk fees. Instead of getting charged 35 bucks for an overdraft, it’s $3 now, not $35. (Applause.)

The bottom line is we’ve invested more in Black America than any previous administration in history has. We’re opening more doors for economic opportunity, including access to capital, entrepreneurship, workforce training so you can build a life of financial freedom and create generational wealth, all — all while being the providers and leaders of your families and community. Another promise made and a promise kept.

We’re just getting started. In a second term, we want to keep it going to level the playing field by making the wealthy begin to pay their fair tax. (Applause.) It ain’t even close.

I said I’d not increase the tax of anybody making less than $400,000 a year. Well, guess who — how much — guess how much the average federal tax rate is for a billionaire? We’ve got a thousand of them. 8.3 percent. 8.3 percent. It’s outrageous. If the billionaires only had to pay 25 percent, it would raise 40 — $400 billion. We’d be able to do everything we’re doing now and still reduce the debt.

Look, billionaires pay their fair share, not only would it sa- — not only reduce the deficit, but it could provide childcare, eldercare, paid leave, and so much more to change the lives of millions of Americans, as well as grow our economy.

But, folks, all progress, all freedom, all opportunities are at risk. Trump is trying to make the country forget just how dark and unsettling things were when he was president. But we’ll never forget lying around and him — how he and — and us — him — him lying around, actually. (Laughter.) And lying about how serious the pandemic was and say he had no responsibility for it. And telling Americans, “Just inject a little bleach.” Remember that?

The way he’s acting, I think he injected a hell of a lot of bleach in himself. (Laughter.)

Trump —

THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) You got it, kid. (Laughter.)

Trump and his MAGA extremists want to give power back to Big Pharma to char- — continue to charge exorbitant fees. Trump is still determined, in his own words, quote, to “terminate” the Affordable Care Act, which would deny 3 million Black Americans health insurance, deny protections for preexisting conditions for millions more.

During his presidency, Trump enacted a $2 trillion tax cut overwhelmingly benefitting the very wealthy and the biggest corporations and exploded the federal deficit. He racked up more federal debt than any president did in any presidential term in history. Tell me about the Republicans and balancing budgets. And now he wants to do it again.

At the same time, he is determined to cut Social Security and Medicare.

THE PRESIDENT: I have a better idea: Let’s protect Social Security and Medicare and make the very wealthy begin to pay for it. (Applause.)

As Kamala said, Trump brags about gutting Roe v. Wade — standing there, “I did this” — while he openly encourages voter suppression and election subversion.

Folks, reelect Kamala and me and a Democratic Congress, and I will sign the John Lewis Voting Right Act and the Freedom to Vote Act tomorrow — (applause) — and we will make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again. (Applause.) It’s within our power to do this.

MAGA extremists ban books. Did you ever think — if you’re anybody over 30 years old — you’d go through a period where we’re banning books in America? They’re trying to erase Black history. We’re going to write Black history, because it’s American history. (Applause.) It’s American history.

Together, we make history, not erase it.

To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.

On Memorial Day, I proudly stood with a Black man — the highest order — the first Black Secretary of Defense; second Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Black woman heads of military units who are overseeing the most diverse, strongest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.)

And, folks, the threat that Trump poses is greater in his second term than his first. It’s clear that when he lost in 2020, something literally snapped in this guy. No, I’m serious. That’s why January 6th happened, when he unleashed an insurrection.

Now, he’s running again, and he’s clearly unhinged. He calls the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol “patriots” — “patriots.” If reelected, he wants to pardon, quote, “every one” of them.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you, what do you think he would’ve done on January the 6th if Black Americans had stormed it — think about this: What do you think would have happened if Black Americans had stormed the Capitol? I don’t think he’d be talking about pardons.

This is the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protested George Floyd’s murder. The same guy who still calls the Central Park Five “guilty,” even though they were exonerated.

He’s that landlord who denies housing applications because of the color of your skin.

He’s that guy who won’t say “Black lives matter” and invokes neo-Nazi, Third Reich terms.

And we all remember Trump is the same guy who unleashed birthism — the birtherism lie against Barack.

And then Trump tells you he’s the greatest president — I love this one. He says he’s the greatest president for Bl- — Black people in the history of America, including more than Abraham Lincoln. (Makes sign of the cross.)

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, can you fathom that? Where in the hell — (applause) — like I said, I think he injected too much of that bleach in his skin — into his brain. (Laughter.) I think it affected his brain.

Some lies are so foolish that you don’t have to say anything about them at all.

Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are” —

AUDIENCE: Believe them!

THE PRESIDENT: — “believe them the first time.” You got it, kid. (Laughter.) You got it.

I’ve shown you who I am, and Trump has shown you who he is. And today, Donald Trump is pandering and peddling lies and stereotypes for your votes so he can win for himself, not for you.

Well, Donald Trump, I have a message for you: Not in our house and not on our watch. (Applause.)

Let me close with this. Let me close with this. And, folks, I know we have a lot more to do. When the full promise of America is not available to every person in this country regardless of race, we’ve got work to do. But let’s not lose sight of how far we’ve come. And the reason is you.

The stakes in this election couldn’t be higher. What’s at stake is nothing less than the fundamental ideal of America — it defines America: that we’re all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and should be treated that way throughout our lives. We’ve never lived up to it, but we’ve never, ever before completely walked away from it, either.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Donald Trump be the reason we stopped being America. (Applause.)

I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Donald Trump — (applause) — we’re not going to let Donald Trump turn America into a place that doesn’t believe in honesty, decency, and treating people with respect. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Donald Trump turn America into a place filled with anger and resentment and hate. (Applause.)

Folks, America has always been a place where we’ve worked toward a more perfect Union, where those who were excluded in the past are included in the promise in the country today. I still believe that. I’m still optimistic. But I need you.

So, my question for you is simple — a simple one: Are you with me?

AUDIENCE: Yes! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Talk to your family.

THE PRESIDENT: Spread the word.

THE PRESIDENT: As the gospel song goes, “We’ve come too far from where we started. Nobody told me the road would be easy. I don’t believe He brought me this far, though, to leave me.” (Applause.)

My fellow Americans, I don’t think the good Lord brought us this far to leave us behind. We just have to remember who we are. We’re the United States of America, and there is nothing — nothing, nothing — beyond our capacity when we act together.

God bless you all. And may God protect our troops. (Applause.)

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Every time — every time I walked out of my Grandfather Finnegan’s house up in Scranton, he’d yell, “Joey, keep the faith.” And my grandmother would yell, “No, Joey, spread it.”

Go spread the faith. (Applause.)

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Seung Min Kim, Associated Press Seung Min Kim, Associated Press

Will Weissert, Associated Press Will Weissert, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-biden-reacts-to-trump-guilty-verdict-says-its-dangerous-for-trump-to-call-trial-rigged

WATCH: Biden reacts to Trump guilty verdict, says it’s ‘dangerous’ for Trump to call trial rigged

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Friday that Donald Trump being found guilty in his New York hush money case reaffirms “the American principle that no one is above the law,” and he said “it’s reckless” and “dangerous” for his predecessor to suggest the legal system was rigged against him.

“Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you,” Biden told reporters at the White House, a day after a jury in New York found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts in a case stemming from the 2016 election.

READ MORE: Could Trump go to prison? 5 quick questions about his conviction

He added that Trump’s “jury’s chosen the same way every jury in America’s chosen,” noted that jurors heard five weeks of evidence and reached “a unanimous verdict: They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.”

The president said Trump could appeal the case “just like everyone else has that opportunity” then pointedly said, “It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”

“Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America,” Biden said. “The justice system should be respected. And we should never let never allow anyone to tear it down.”

WATCH: Trump found guilty in hush money trial. What happens now?

As the president left the podium after his remarks, a reporter shouted if he had any reaction to Trump calling himself a political prisoner and blaming the president directly for what’s happening to him. Biden stopped and flashed a grin, but did not answer the question.

He similarly didn’t answer when another reporter asked if he thought Trump should appear on November’s ballot.

None of the developments changed Trump’s defiant tone as he looked to galvanize supporters ahead of November. Moments after Biden spoke, Trump sent a fundraising email declaring, “I WAS JUST CONVICTED IN A RIGGED TRIAL. I AM A POLITICAL PRISONER!”

Biden was at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, marking the anniversary of the 2015 death of his grown son, Beau from brain cancer when the jury reached its verdicts on Thursday, and he offered no personal reaction to the trial at the time. But he returned to Washington on Friday for an event at the White House with the Super Bowl Champion Kansas City Chiefs, and spoke to reporters about the situation in the Middle East before delivering brief remarks on Trump’s case.

In comments to reporters at his namesake tower in Manhattan earlier Friday, Trump tried to cast himself as a martyr , suggesting that if he could be convicted, “They can do this to anyone.”

READ MORE: A day after being convicted of 34 felonies, Trump is campaigning off guilty verdict

“I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and save our Constitution. I don’t mind,” Trump said.

Biden for months had carefully avoided involvement in Trump’s legal drama, looking to keep from feeding into his Republican rival’s claims that his criminal woes were the result of politically motivated prosecutions. But as the New York trial concluded, Biden’s campaign became far more vocal about it.

His campaign had released a series of innuendo-laced statements that alluded to the trial to attack Trump’s policy positions, and then Biden himself quipped that he heard Trump was “free on Wednesdays” — the trial’s scheduled day off — in a video statement when he agreed to debate Trump head-to-head.

With closing arguments underway on Tuesday, Biden’s campaign even showed up outside the Manhattan courthouse with actor Robert De Niro and a pair of former police officers who responded to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection, in what it said was an effort to refocus the presidential race on the former president’s role in the riot. That decision came as the campaign felt its message about the stakes of the election was struggling to break through the intense focus on the trial.

Shortly after Thursday’s verdict, Biden’s reelection campaign sought to keep the focus on the choice confronting voters in November and the impact of a second Trump presidency.

“A second Trump term means chaos, ripping away Americans’ freedoms and fomenting political violence – and the American people will reject it this November,” Biden spokesman Michael Tyler said in a statement.

Weissert reported from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Support Provided By: Learn more

A twist in the legal fight between X and eSafety, and Google AI advises eating both glue and 'one small rock a day'

Analysis A twist in the legal fight between X and eSafety, and Google AI advises eating both glue and 'one small rock a day'

A blonde woman with shoulder length hair speaking with two other women behind her on either side

Hello and welcome to Screenshot, your weekly tech update from national technology reporter Ange Lavoipierre, featuring the best, worst and strangest in tech and online news. Read to the end for some truly terrible pizza advice and a singing toilet.

The eSafety vs X case just got messier

The eSafety Commissioner's fight against X over videos of the Wakeley stabbing just got messier, with two new groups granted leave to join the case.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have pulled off a rare legal manoeuvre, winning the right to participate in Federal Court proceedings they caught wind of over in the United States.

It's another knock to eSafety, which has been trying to force Elon Musk's company to remove or hide about 65 instances of footage showing a stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel since April.

To recap briefly, X initially agreed to geoblock the posts, but refused the regulator's subsequent legal notice, which would have meant global removal.

At that point, all hell promptly broke loose.

Amid an intercontinental slanging match between Anthony Albanese and Elon Musk, the Federal Court granted a temporary injunction, which X ignored, ordering the social media platform to hide the material.

The stalemate lasted more than two weeks until Justice Kennett rejected eSafety's bid to renew the injunction, after hearing arguments that the commissioner had overreached .

It was enough of a commotion to attract two American interlopers, the EFF and FIRE, who jointly applied to "intervene" in the matter on behalf of internet users outside Australia.

Their bid has mostly escaped public notice so far, but this week Justice Kennett decided the parties had a right to be heard, despite arguments to the contrary from eSafety.

Tesla and SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk gestures at an event.

"It's not automatic and it's quite rare in the Australian context for intervention to be granted," said Kevin Lynch, a partner at Johnson Winter Slattery, the firm representing the two groups.

"Our clients won't be arguing for one side or the other," said Lynch, adding that they're only there to bring an "international perspective".

That perspective happens to overlap significantly with the case being made by X, centring on free speech and the appropriate limits of the commissioner's powers.

"If an Australian court makes a global takedown order, it might signal to other countries that they can impose similar orders under their own laws," Lynch said.

In other words: if it can happen in Australia, there's nothing to stop it from happening in China, Russia, Myanmar or Iran.

EFF and FIRE now have a seat at the table, in recognition of the fact that this fight "has a major impact upon their interests as freedom of speech advocates", Lynch said.

I've given up guessing what will happen next here, but you can tune in again on July 24 for the next slightly more crowded bout.

News Corp zigs where others have zagged, cutting a deal with OpenAI

News Corp has decided to allow OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, to train its models on its journalism.

The company, which owns The Australian, Daily Telegraph and Sky News, also struck a similar deal with Google in April.

In contrast, the ABC, The New York Times and CNN have all opted to block OpenAI's web crawler.

The New York Times is even suing the company , along with ChatGPT investment partner, Microsoft, alleging a breach of copyright.

The dilemma of how to engage with AI companies has managed to split the newsroom so comprehensively because there really is an argument each way.

In the words of TJ Thomson and James Meese, writing in The Conversation , journalism may be "signing its own death warrant" by leaping into the jaws of the machine.

On the other hand, with deals like this in place, whose journalism is more likely to rise to the top in an AI-augmented search query?

Speaking of which…

Google AI says you should eat 'one small rock a day'

Another world-class AI has soiled itself in public despite assurances from the maker that its new model is definitely toilet-trained.

Google's new "AI Overviews" tool has told people to add glue to pizza and said geologists recommend eating "one small rock a day".

It's also been spreading dangerous misinformation and the occasional conspiracy theory .

When it comes to the global unboxing of a generative AI tool, we expect nothing less at this point.

Google is remaining upbeat for now, telling the BBC : "The examples we've seen are generally very uncommon queries, and aren't representative of most people's experiences.

"The vast majority of AI Overviews provide high-quality information, with links to dig deeper on the web."

Granted, the rocks thing is funny. After all, it was written by satirists .

But the serious side to this is that Google, for better or worse, is still most people's gateway to the internet, and we should all be worried if it's malfunctioning.

And if it's all too much…

Then go straight to the sauce on r/pizza , the Subreddit from which Google AI looks to have scraped its now-infamous cooking tip.

Alternatively, if you're feeling brave, behold the terrible visage of Skibidi Biden .

All recipe tips, story tips and unhinged Subreddits can be sent securely via Proton Mail .

X (formerly Twitter)

Could X be banned from your phone? The worst-case scenario for Elon Musk

Fear killer robots? This expert believes you should be more worried about what AI is doing to your mind

Courts and Trials
Information Technology Industry
Internet Culture
Science and Technology
Social Media

IMAGES

Speech On Internet
Speech On Internet
persuasive speech about teens and internet safety
Speech on Internet for Students and Children in 900+ Words
To The Contrary
PPT

VIDEO

Unpacking the New AI Executive Order: A Game Changer for Tech
informative speech
Free Speech, Social Media & Elon Musk
CALL INS: Researching With AI Assistance: Recommendations & Predictions For AI Research Tools PART 2
Unlocking AI Potential For Building Truthful Systems, Preemptively Outsmarting NWO Math Rationing?
Artificial Intelligence & Data Is CRITICAL: The Mad Rush To Understand & Control This Pivotal Tech

COMMENTS

Speech on The Internet in English For Students
Speech on the Internet. A warm welcome to all the esteemed ladies and gentlemen. I would like to share a few words on the topic of the internet. The Internet has become the grain of our existence in the modern-day world. From studies to pharmaceuticals, to groceries to banking, we have the privilege of having the entire world at our fingertips ...
Speech on Internet for Students and Children
Speech for Students. Very good morning to all. Today, I am here to present a speech on internet. Someone has rightly said that the world is a small place. With the advent of the internet, this saying seems realistic. The internet has really bought the world together and the distance between two persons is really not a distance today.
What you need to know about Section 230, the 'most ...
That last proposal is aimed at reining in online advertising abuses, but critics say even small changes to Section 230 could have unintended consequences for free speech on the internet. Still ...
Speech On The Internet
Speech On Internet - 10 Lines, Short and Long Speech. The Internet is regarded as one of the greatest human inventions. The Internet has changed the way people work and live for the better. It assisted us in reducing distance, breaking down all human-made barriers, and bringing the world to our fingertips. The Internet has become a worldwide ...
Internet Speech for Students and Children in English
Speech On Internet | Internet Speech for Students and Children in English. February 8, 2024 by Prasanna. Speech On Internet: One of the latest inventions done by a human being is said to be the Internet. The Internet has revolutionized from ages with working styles and living. It helped us to reduce the distance breaking all human-made barriers ...
Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy
The Future of Free Speech in the Social Media Era. One of the most fiercely debated issues of the current era is what to do about "bad" speech on the internet, particularly on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Problematic language, including hate speech, disinformation, and propaganda have been around throughout human history.
Internet
One major area of internet regulation is protecting minors from pornography and other indecent or obscene speech. For example, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996 prohibiting "the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages" over the internet to minors. However, in 1997 the Supreme Court in Reno v.
Internet Speech
The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books, newspapers, and magazines. The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of expression in its myriad forms.
PDF Online Speech and the First Amendment: Ten Principles from the Supreme
1. The First Amendment's protections apply to online speech as much as to offline speech. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the freedom of speech." This core principle applies whether the speech in question is shared in a public square or on the internet. As the Supreme
Freedom of Expression on the Internet
The District Judge's concluding remarks concerning the character of threatening speech on the Internet bear emphasis: Baker's words were transmitted by means of the Internet, a relatively new communications medium that is itself currently the subject of much media attention. The Internet makes it possible with unprecedented ease to achieve ...
Speech on Importance Of Internet
Speech on Importance Of Internet. The Internet, like a worldwide web, connects you to the rest of the world. It's like a vast ocean of information, readily available at your fingertips. Without it, imagine how difficult it would be to send emails, do research, or even make online purchases. The Internet is indeed a valuable tool in our daily ...
20 Eye-Opening Speeches on the Internet
He sees the Internet as the thing on which humans will become dependent. Michael Anti's Internet keynote is a fascinating exploration of the use of Internet in China. He dismisses the notion that Internet is banned in China and argues that the blogging behavior there is actually empowering and connecting its citizens. 4.3.
Speech on Internet
Speech on the Importance of Internet. The internet has become an indispensable part of everyday life. The internet was first invented by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf . While internet has many advantages, it does have disadvantages too. The following section speaks about the advantages of the internet. Free material availability - Many students can ...
What does freedom of speech mean in the internet era?
The EU's Digital Services Act, approved in 2022, is meant to prohibitshadow banning. In India, users trying to broach touchy subjects online have allegedthat it's happened. And in Mexico, some critics have actually advocatedfor more shadow banning of criminal cartels. 'A euphemism for censorship'.
Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons
Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide. Societies confronting the trend must deal with questions of free speech and censorship on widely used tech platforms.
Title: The future of free speech on the internet
The future of free speech on the internet. March 22, 2023. Members of the Georgetown community joined the McCourt School's Tech & Public Policy program for a discussion about the future of free speech on the internet with social media advocate and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States ...
16
A contemporary cliché holds that "the internet changed everything.". Certainly, it has had a profound and wide-ranging impact on many aspects of human experience. 1 The pace, quantity, and quality of online communication might prompt a reasonable person to assume that the unique characteristics of such speech have required us to reconsider ...
Supreme Court could change free speech on internet
Key Points. The U.S. justice system, including the Supreme Court, will consider cases that will help determine the bounds of free expression on the internet. Section 230 of the Communications ...
3 Minute Speech on Internet in English for Students
There are many benefits of using the internet. One of the major benefits of using the internet is that it provides vast amounts of information. You can find any type of information on the internet very easily. Internet has made everything easy and possible for human beings. We can connect globally with people all around the world with the help ...
Speech on Internet for Students and Children in 900+ Words
The Internet is a group of networks which connect people all over the world. The internet was developed by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The first connection was ARPANET, which was connected on October 1,1969. The worldwide Web is the most popular service, which was created in Switzerland in 1990 by ...
Free Speech and the Internet
internet in the past two decades has presented a conundrum for Mill's theory of free speech. Ideally, the marketplace of ideas would benefit from as many positions considered as possible, which the internet's connectivity and speed provides; however, adding more voices to the.
United States: Freedom on the Net 2022 Country Report
The internet in the United States remains vibrant, diverse, and largely free from government censorship, and the country's legal framework provides some of the world's strongest protections for free expression online. ... Control over Legal Speech by Platforms, Governments, and Internet Users," The University of Chicago Law Review Online ...
Freedom on the Net 2021: The Global Drive to Control Big Tech
The United States played a leading role in shaping early internet norms around free speech and free markets, but its laissez-faire approach to the tech industry created opportunities for authoritarian manipulation, data exploitation, and widespread malfeasance. In the absence of a shared global vision for a free and open internet, governments ...
Jason Kelce Defends Kylie Kelce From Internet Trolls After Harrison
Jason Kelce appears to be done joking about Harrison Butker's misogynistic commencement speech. "I don't think of Kylie as a homemaker," Kelce responded to the anonymous X.com user on May ...
13 Things I Found on the Internet Today (Vol. 698)
13 Things I Found on the Internet Today (Vol. 698) - Editor's Picks - Messy Nessy Chic. 15 49.0138 8.38624 both 0 bullet 0 4000 1 0 horizontal https://www.messynessychic.com 300 4000. ... Early Androids and Artificial Speech. Centuries before audio deepfakes and text-to-speech software, inventors in the eighteenth century constructed androids ...
Joe Biden 'Sleeping' During Memorial Day Speech Raises Questions
Biden commemorated Memorial Day at the Arlington National Cemetery on Monday where he laid a wreath by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as part of an annual show of respect. Ahead of their likely ...
Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris at a Campaign
Girard CollegePhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 2:17 P.M. EDT THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, Philadelphia. (Applause.) Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I want to thank Robert Nix for ...
Speech Codes and Commissions Trample on the Expressive Rights of
The negative impact on speech, both domestic and international, that came from this censorship even drew the attention of the US free speech organization FIRE and the internet freedom organization ...
WATCH: Biden reacts to Trump guilty verdict, says it's ...
"Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you," President Joe ...
A twist in the legal fight between X and eSafety, and Google AI advises
This week in tech news, OpenAI drops a new chatbot voice bearing a striking resemblance to Scarlett Johansson's, federal parliament discusses laws on political deepfakes, and the internet ...

Long Speech on the Internet

Short Speech

10 Lines Speech

Overflow of Information

Education for All

Online Services

Social Media

Online Business

Speech on Internet

Evolution of Internet

Pros of the Internet

Cons of the Internet

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Speech for Students

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

What you need to know about Section 230, the ‘most important law protecting internet speech’

What is Section 230?

Why does it matter?

Has the law changed?

What reforms are being considered?

More about Section 230

Opinion | Sally Buzbee steps down as executive editor of The Washington Post

What do horse race journalists think of ‘horse race journalism’?

Fact-check: Trump’s speech at Trump Tower after his New York felony conviction

IFCN announces new grant opportunity supported by Meta to combat AI-generated misinformation on WhatsApp

Opinion | Trump guilty on all counts: breaking down the media coverage of the historic trial

Start your day informed and inspired.

Products & Resources

Colleges & Courses

Predictors & E-Books

Predictors & Articles

Top Courses & Careers

Quick Links

Diploma Colleges

Upcoming Events

Other Exams

Top Countries

Student Visas

Engineering Preparation

Medical Preparation

Online Courses

Top Streams

Specializations

Top Providers

Speech On Internet - 10 Lines, Short and Long Speech

10- Lines Speech On The Internet

Short Speech On the Internet

How Internet Has Changed The World

Long Speech On the Internet

Advantages Of Internet

Disadvantages Of Internet

How To Be Careful Over The Internet

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

ALLEN Digital Scholarship Admission Test (ADSAT)

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

PW JEE Coaching

PW NEET Coaching

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

Download Careers360 App's

We Appeared in

Congress has attempted to protect minors from pornography on the internet

Congress has also attempted to criminalize virtual child pornography

‘Hit list’ of abortion doctors on website found to be ‘true threat’

Rights of anonymous speech not absolute on internet

Internet Speech

ACLU Statement on Latest Congressional Attempt to Dismantle Free Speech Online

ACLU Commends the FCC’s Restoration of Net Neutrality Regulations

ACLU, Civil-Society Groups, Urge Congress to Extend Funding for Affordable Internet Program

ACLU Commends FCC Efforts to Restore Net Neutrality Rules

Communications Decency Act Section 230

Speech on Importance Of Internet

1-minute Speech on Importance Of Internet

2-minute Speech on Importance Of Internet

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

20 Eye-Opening Speeches on the Internet

From the Physical World Wide Web to Social Media in China

Speech on Internet