Freedom

“Freedom, Determinism, and the Case for Moral Responsibility: A Look Back at the Murder of Jamie Bulger” begins by telling of the heinous crime that is the centerpiece of this paper. On February 12th 1993, British toddler Jamie Bulger abducted at a local shopping mall in Liverpool, England. Evidence that the two year old was beaten, sexually molested, and clubbed to death with bricks and an iron bar before discarding his body on train tracks. The age of his two assailants, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, ten years old.

Then they begin to explain the difference of opinions on the responsibility of the murderers. One side labels the boys as savages and criminals, while the other argues that they are “victims of broader social, economic, and cultural processes. ” Sparking the question, are we truly responsible for how we act in society? The essay then moves on to the defense of determinism and how it relates to this specific event, stating that, “From a determinist point of view, Jon Venables’s and Robert Thompson’s fate was set even before their birth.

Born to ill-educated, working class parents, the details of the boys’ lives constitute a veritable catalogue of social ills. ” The paper enlightens us on the rough and negative environments that both Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were raised in. Jon’s parents were “unstable and depressed,” and his dad eventually abandoned his abusive mother, himself and his “developmentally challenged” siblings. Thompson was the second youngest of “seven violent and aggressive boys… one of whom was an arsonist and another who was a master thief. His parents were drunks and he witnessed his mother being beaten by his father in many alcoholic driven violent outbursts. The question is raised if Venables and Thompson are morally responsible for the actions leading to the murder of little Jamie. Here is where the paper really dives into the determinist philosphy, stating “the Determinist argument holds that a person’s heredity and environment fix the choice before it is made. ” Using legitimate sources such as “The Delusion of Free Will” by Robert Blatchford and “What Means This Freedom” by John Hospers, the essay presents sound reasoning to the determinist view.

Taking from Blatchford, the point “that teaching is part of our environment and that we act as we have been taught that we ought to act. Thus, though we may act as we choose, we will choose as heredity and environment cause us to choose” John Hospers suggests that one holds no responsible for any of ones actions because actions “grow out of his character, which is shaped and molded and made what it is by influences . . . that were not of his own making or choosing” The paper also presents some arguments against the deterministic view from the free will perspective.

Another essay, “A Brief Defense of Free Will” by Tibor Macha, and his opinion “the fact that some people with bad childhoods turn out to be crooks while others are decent would seem to indicate that people can cause and are responsible for at least some of what they do,” is examined. In “The Problem of Free Will,” W. T. Stace states, “In the case of Jamie Bulger’s murderers, young as they were at the time, the drive to inflict unimaginable pain on the toddler, at the moment they did it, does not seem to have been externally caused. They desired to do it. They were not motivated by any external factor, such as the proverbial gun to the head.

They were morally responsible for their action and thus deserved to be punished. ” While this paper makes a reasonable and knowledgeable argument for us to try to look at crimes like this from a more deterministic view, I have a hard time converting. Being that I am a criminal justice major, I am aware that there are many different theories on why crimes are committed, and not only what should be done to help prevent them from happening again, but what kind of treatment or punishment the perpetrator(s) should receive to more effectively rehabilitate them.

I am one that stands with firm justice on brutal acts like this, regardless of age. Although in a violent and criminalistic environment, the kids were not directly forced to commit such a gruesome act, nor did they ever witness it from their parents. Therefore, in my opinion, the responsibility lies within the kids for their desire to not only torture, but kill.

Kant’s theories vary greatly with that of other philosophers. He was a retributivist who believed that it is alright to punish the wrongdoers as long as such punishment is tantamount or equivalent to the weight of the crime that was done. Punishment without proper reasons or justifications, such as jailing someone for petty theft is (according to the Kant) unjust. He spoke about punishment on the critique of practical reasons which is in contrast with Jeremy Bentham’s theory. Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian theorist who considers punishment as evil (Robert, 2000).

While Bentham supports rehabilitation efforts in prisons Kant found such efforts immoral. Kant further argued that such actions acted against ones personal rational choices. Kant rejects manipulation of people even when the causes and reasons are just. He believes that people should be allowed to reason for themselves and their decisions should be respected. Kant criticized other theories on the grounds that they were only hypothetical and could not be applicable in the real world.

Some theories argue that the greater good ought to be considered when acting, nevertheless, such theory would be irrelevant to someone whose interest is contrary to the maintenance of the common good. Hypothetical moral systems should not be used to determine the moral action since they are very subjective. He rejected Hume’s theory on the ideal theory of the mind. To Kant, analytical methods should not be used to explain what is physically evident. He believes that synthetic reasoning involves relating concepts that are not directly related to the subject concept. A prior knowledge can be used in the metaphysics study. (Bayne, 2000)

Kant criticizes the utilitarian view regarding happiness as the highest goal. He opposes this view as it created loopholes in arguing that people simply wants to achieve happiness. Happiness as far as Kant is concerned is a product of emotion. Following Kant’s arguments, acknowledging happiness as man’s final goal would be like ignoring the fact that human beings are rational and can choose or plan and anticipate their future. Kant portrays the categorical imperative approach where he sees all human beings as occupants of a special place in creation. People have different needs which ought to be satisfied using certain means.

He uses the term maxim to refer to intentions or principle of action. Human beings should not act in a way that portrays other people simply as means to an end but as an end to itself. In working to attain the maxim people should not use others as means. People used should benefit from the arrangement and their consent should be sought. To him, duties should be beneficial to people used in the process of attaining the goals. I agree with Kant’s theory as all people should be treated with equality and with respect. There are two types of imperatives. The hypothetical imperative tells what we ought to do in order to achieve a goal.

The categorical imperative leads to absoluteness since human beings are rational and can govern their actions. People should only act on maxims that can become ‘universal law’. To Kant, there are universal moral laws that are logically necessary. People’s actions should therefore be performed according to the acceptable universal laws of morality. Individuals should act according to the same moral laws (Robert, 2000). All people should be treated with moral respect. Deception should not be considered even when being applied for wrongdoers. To Kant, duties can be perfect or imperfect.

Imperfect duties entail working to develop our talents since they are given to us for a purpose while perfect duties entail a duty to others. Kant rejected the ethical force brought about by tradition and coined the modern idea of autonomy. Autonomy is simply the capability of an individual to act on behalf of his own. Autonomy of the will is the ability of the will to be a will in itself while the will refers to the means by which a maxim can become a universal law. This lies in contrast with the notion of Heteronomy which is acting after observing the various consequences that an action has produced.

He brought about the idea of centrality of rational thought. Each person can make free and autonomous choices and they are compelled by rationality and the categorical imperative in their decisions. Adherence to categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice since people make their decisions rationally. In pursuit for various maxims all parties involved benefit from the arrangement (Collins, 2000). To Kant, objects do not have value but man gives them value through their rational goals and desires. Human beings have an intrinsic worth or dignity.

They should therefore act in good will out of a sense of duty and use the categorical imperative. What we give to society comes back to us and we ought not to harm others but work in ensuring that they benefit from out actions. I agree with the ideas presented by Kant, provided the way in which he had defended the rationality of people. I also agree that there are categorical imperative laws or universal maxims which comprise our ethical standards. Nevertheless, I could not agree that people are ought to be treated as ends in themselves, for there are hard cases wherein one must treat someone as a means to an end.

For instance, if the only way for a person to survive is to get an organ from someone who is already dying, wouldn’t it be rational to take the organ and use it for the person’s benefit since its real owner is already dying. Thus, there might be cases wherein Kant’s theory may fail or may not be of any use. Another famous example is the situation that involves lying. It is a universal maxim for Kant that people must not tell lies. However, if there is a killer at the lobby looking for a certain person, whom by chance you know where, was hiding; would it still be wrong to tell a lie (Bass).

FREEDOM Freedom. Isn’t that such a beautiful word. A luxurious gift we’ve been given. A feeling many people would like to experience. We have a right as people living in the United States of America to have and experience freedom. But did we ever really take the time to think of what freedom really means and how lucky we are to have such a thing. Freedom has such a great meaning and value to me because I know what it is like to have no freedom. To me freedom is much more than just being able to do as you please, it’s more like something that can be sensed.

Like when you go outside on fourth of July to watch fireworks you have a sense, a feeling that says I AM FREE. I remember when I was first asked “What does freedom mean to you? ” My thoughts immediately flew to Somalia, my parents motherland. I remembered what my mom told me about Somalia and what I saw on TV about how it’s citizens don’t have any freedom especially women. I remembered what I saw about how militant groups are stripping away the citizen’s freedom.

I remembered the condition the kids in Somalia lived because of the lack of freedom. I remembered how cruel I thought those people were for stripping away a natural that we as people have. They don’t have the freedom that we take for granted every day and we don’t know how great the gift of freedom that been endowed upon us is until it’s been taken away. To be able to live in a country that gives me freedom and the responsibilities that come with it is a great honor and I will always be grateful.

An appreciation of the civil liberties and basic freedoms enjoyed by the American individual, according to Eric Foner, would be impossible without a knowledge of how the American people—generation after generation—struggled to define and demarcate the boundaries of freedom and liberty.

In “The Story of American Freedom,” Foner (2002) successfully applies a mélange of analytical framework ranging from structural analysis, marxist dialectical and historical materialism; to feminist and postmodern criticism to prove that “freedom has always been a terrain of conflict, subject to multiple and competing interpretations.” By analyzing freedom from a historical narrative, he aims to show “how at different periods of American history different ideas of freedom have been conceived and implemented, and how the clash between dominant and dissenting views has constantly reshaped the idea’s meaning.’’ And because of this, the discourse of American civil liberties—borne from the American people’s love affair with the idea of freedom—will only gain relevance by identifying the “the meanings of freedom; the social conditions that make it possible; and the boundaries of freedom — the definition, that is, of who is entitled to enjoy it (Foner, 2002).”

“The Birth of Civil Liberties”

Indeed, the notions of civil liberties in a given society are necessarily intertwined with its cherished concept of freedom. In the book’s eight chapter, entitled “The Birth of Civil Liberties,” Foner shows that the inception of the idea of civil liberties was the outcome of the tumultuous events and crisis prior and after the World War I: the United States’ participation in the war, the  paranoia produced by the emergence of Socialist Russia, and the Great Depression following shortly after the war ended. It was at this period, with the widespread poverty amidst the growth of the United States as a major Capitalist economy; and Progressivists’ disenchantment with the illusions of state benevolence after the whole scale arrest of left-wing intellectuals, that the paradigm shift from the dominant “freedom from” into “freedom to” occurred. The ideas of social scientists as Herbert Croly, John Dewey, and William Willoughby, formed the basis of the new definition of freedom as one that does not only protect the individual from aggression, but one that actually permitted him to do things. Foner (2002) narrates the ensuing contradiction between the dominant progressivism and the emerging modern liberalism:

“Effective freedom,’ wrote John Dewey, who pondered the question from the 1890s until his death in 1952, was far different from the ‘highly formal and limited concept of liberty’ as a preexisting possession of autonomous individuals that needed to be protected from outside restraint.”

For effective freedom to crystallize, it was realized,  certain conditions first had to be met. Human beings (at this stage meaning White Men), for instance, though “by nature” imbued with the freedom to live comfortably, could not do so if they were impoverished. Freedom therefore required that a human being be economically secure, which meant that unemployment and starvation were seen as infringements to freedom.

“The New Deal and the Redefinition of Freedom”

By the 1930’s, the belief that economic security was a critical condition for exercising individual freedoms had gained significant acceptance. This is reflected in the way that the state, led by then Pres. Roosevelt,  implemented the New Deal from 1933-37, the pre-cursor of the establishment of welfare in the United States which implemented “relief,” “reform,” and “recovery” by intervening in the market and granting the demands of groups from a variety of the political spectrum. Seeking to cushion the impact of the Great Depression on the starving and unemployed majority of the American people, as well as pacify the restless from succumbing to socialist ideology, the New Deal showed the transformation of progressivism into modern liberalism, which espoused Keynesian economic models and personal freedom based on the four Rs: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Fighting for Freedom

And so it is with the rhetoric of freedom that the United States would camouflage its interests in going to the Second World War and in declaring the cold war against the socialist bloc of the USSR. Noting the irony when Pres. Roosevelt promises the world a Global New Deal based on the four freedoms while declaring its participation in the war,  Foner echoes  Dewey’s lament when he wrote in “The Meaning of Freedom in the Age of Emancipation” that: “in our own time, we have witnessed the putative division of the planet into free and non-free worlds (with the former including many nations that might be seen as lacking in freedom) invoked to justify violations of individual liberties at home and interference with the right to self determination (Foner, 1994)”

This startling realization, that “American freedom has been both a reality and a mythical ideal — a living truth for millions of Americans; a cruel mockery for others,” influenced the formation of racial, gender, ethnicity, and class-based reform and radical abolitionist movements whose basic slogan was that of equality and the recognition of marginalized groups, such as those for the citizenship of the Blacks, women’s suffrage in the 1960s, and the people’s right to state-sponsored provision of social services in the 1930s. Foner describes the development of emergent concepts of freedom in  the 20th century which tested and challenged the status quo: “feminists sought to recast gender relations in order to afford women the same freedom as men, and Americans divided over whether poverty and lack of economic security should be seen as deprivations of freedom that the government had an obligation to alleviate.”

The women’s vocal demands for their right to vote  and the Black and immigrant movement for civil recognition, were therefore significant efforts to redefine the inclusive and exclusive meanings of freedom since “categories of freedom defines the categories of unfreedom.”  Foner affirms the relevance of such movements by stating that, “those who adopt a purely ‘negative’ view of freedom as the absence of external coercion, rather than, for example, economic autonomy or political empowerment, must identify what constitutes illegitimate coercion.”

It is with this contention, that “freedom has not simply been a linear progress toward a pre-ordained goal,” but rather a complex and conflicted—and sometimes even violent— struggle between the contradicting interests of groups; tainted by class, race, ethnicity, gender, and even religion, that Foner  challenges and dares his reader to attempt to redefine the confined, claustrophobic spaces of America’s state-sponsored concepts of freedom.

References:

Foner, Eric. The Story of American Freedom. New York: Norton, 1998. pp. 163-236

Foner, Eric, “The Meaning of Freedom in the Age of Emancipation.” The Journal of American History 81, no. 2 (Sept. 1994) p. 4.

NEW YORK Descriptive essay New York City is the place that I want to visit, revisit, and visit again. Out there on the streets, I feel free. When coming from New Jersey to New York City on the New Jersey Transit tTrain, which is grimy but comfortable, it is an experience unlike I have ever felt before. Crossing under the Hudson River and coming into the crammedjam-packed full station is reminiscent of having some kind of travel machine bringing you from earth to space in a flash. When I visited I felt like anything isn’t impossible .

Living in the turks and caicos islands is a fantastic privilege; living in New York City is something further even better. As you stagger up those stairs to the city streets and you capture that first breath of city air, you declare to yourself, this is Freedom!!!!! The buildings are so astonishingly tall and eye-catching. I think to myself, there are so many buildings here I find it hard to believe that man is capable of putting them up, but on the other hand also knocking them down. The buildings look like they had plunged from God’s hands and landed in one spot, where else but in New York City.

As I make my way down the city street, I feel overwhelmed by people walking and talking in scores of different languages. People with looks that I have never seen before. , Ppeople that look somewhat bizarre to me. Everyone is different in their ownere way of style. Let me tell you something, this big place called “New York” is the capital of all the new fashions and old fads. What styles I might find either peculiar or eccentric usually becomes what I start to copy in later years when it becomes starts being the local fashion of my town.

What I am trying to say is that New York is the inventor of all invertors. I perceive New York City as a carefree expression of freedom. Most of today’s new clothing styles are adopted from New York. People are so full of life and encouragement. No one judges the way you present yourself in this unrestricted environment. People in New York feel comfortable dressing and acting anyway that they care to. Everything there are so upscale and amazing but one thing that caught my attention is that all athough all these things were said theres no place like home

Warren Bryan 3/5/12 Book Review: Capitalism & Freedom Author: Milton Friedman Milton Friedman’s Capitalism & Freedom is one of the most important books regarding economics of the 20th century. His thoughts laid the groundwork for the emerging modern conservative movement, which was an evolution of the 19th century beliefs surrounding liberalism.

Friedman’s major themes of his most famous work consist of the roles of competitive capitalism, as well as the role that government should play in a society “dedicated to freedom and relying primarily on the market to organize economic activity. ” The book touches on a multitude of other economic issues; however, his first two chapters regarding the major themes of the book are most relevant in today’s study of economics. Most of Friedman’s viewpoints I agree with in terms of promoting freedom and its necessity to promoting prosperity and growth.

Friedman, however, lacks a certain level of clarity regarding the specificity of his definition of “economic freedom” and the other variants of “freedom. ” Friedman argues that a free market economic policy is by definition part of freedom, or in his words, “…freedom in economic arrangement is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. ” This is one of his prime arguments supporting his claim that free market economic policies are critical for a free society.

The implications surrounding this statement are that anyone who is against a free market economic policy is also against the American values of liberty and the liberal tradition, or as Friedman puts it, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ” What he lacks in his explanation concerning the connection between freedom and economic freedom is his disregard to define the concept of freedom, whether concerning its origins, how it developed, or what it means specifically relative to all the different economic issues it applies to.

For example he lists several present day scenarios that violate one’s economic freedom: having to pay 10% of income to social security, not being able to follow an occupation of your own choice without professional licensure, being forbidden to exchange certain items because of quotas that prevent such exchanges, being thrown in jail for setting prices lower than the manufacture specified (fair trade laws), and the farmer who cannot grow the amount he desires because of price supports.

Under complete economic freedom, the government should not be able to tell us how or where to spend our money, dispose of our goods, or how we should labor because it’s in violation of our individual freedom, or our entitlement to property and labor, according to Friedman. Surely these are all characteristics of being free, however his explanation is certainly not the end all-be all. It is more relative to examine what is exactly entitled to the elements of freedom.

A famous example comes from a Supreme Court Justice who said, “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin. ” This coincides with John Locke’s paradoxical claim that one must give up certain rights to achieve freedom. An absolute interpretation of “freedom” is just not plausible because of the endless amounts of extenuating circumstances that would, and should, interfere with ones freedom. The very nature of society and law places these restrictions on absolute freedom because your actions are limited by the protection of another’s entitlements.

Friedman acknowledges this impossibility and admits that there is still an important role for the government to make the rules and act as “umpire” toward them. He concludes on this thought stating, “What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. ” Friedman more narrowly believed the government should intervene with “indivisible matters. ” A problem with this claim regarding indivisible matters is he never clarifies what constitutes an indivisible matter.

The example he gives is in relation to national defense, “I cannot get the amount of national defense I want and you a different amount. With respect to such indivisible matters we can discuss, argue, and vote. But having decided we must conform. ” Thus, we shall let the government deal with indivisible matters where we must meet a consensus on basic things such as defense. How do we know that a flat tax, a tax reform mentioned by Friedman, counts as a matter that government should control whereas a tax for social security does not?

The criteria must be explained for the difference between the two. Friedman believed that the market allows better proportional representation than the democratic process. “The market allows the voluntary exchange of goods between individuals without coercion. ” “Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion…no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Cooperation is thereby achieved without coercion. ” This implies that the free market system gives people what they want instead of what some group thinks they “ought to want. This is a basis for his belief in laissez-faire. Friedman believed that government intervention enforces conformity. Policies are implemented based on a majority vote, or at best a 2/3rd vote, thus imposing a view from the majority onto the minority. A valid point that Friedman fails to comprehend that government is necessary for exchange even to begin. What he fails to comprehend is that the market only exists by being founded on laws that the government has already defined.

The perceived freedom of the market and tolerance of diversity is not the product of free markets, yet the benefit and consequence of agreements that makes the market possible to begin with. The possibility that people can exchange goods in the market place pre-supposed that there are contracts, notions of property, enforcement systems for violations and so on. The most crucial part in regards to what makes freedom possible in the market is directly related to the government, the very thing he believed enforced conformity.

I argue that Friedman fails to recognize both types of freedoms, the first being the freedom to participate in the market but not the freedom in regards to the agreement undertaken to participate within the market in the first place, or the rules of the game. An analogy I found clarifies this concept. The analogy compares the games of checkers and chess. Chess has a more complex rule set than checkers does relative to the extent of moves allowable, however most people would probably choose to play chess for this very reason.

Thus, a reduction in rules with the government doesn’t necessarily mean we are more economically free, but yet that we choose to “play” a different game. Surely I agree with Friedman that the more economic freedom the better, but it is ultimately the government’s job for how we settle the “rules of the game. ” As Friedman’s book proves, as well as my arguments against some of his claims, it is very hard to establish a fine line between governments and markets. The degree of freedom will always be in question within a free society.

However, there are many different degrees within these free markets and there can be multiple ways to draw the line between government and the market and still be classified as a “free market. ” ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 4. [ 2 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 6 [ 3 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 9 [ 4 ].

Howard Schwartz, “What Color Tie Do you Vote For? ” Jan. 2007, 5 March 2012 [ 5 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 24 [ 6 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 33 [ 7 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 35 [ 8 ]. Milton Friedman, Capitalism And Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002), 35

Internet Freedom and Democracy Recently people more aware about real democracy because technological developments and internet help people who access the internet simultaneously. Especially internet has a great contribition. Internet’s most important two features which are pure information and easy accessibility are gift from network developers to general public. Some believes that this intervention is very helpful for humanity and some others argues that internet will be a tool for mean and malevolent people such as terrorists,racist or pedophiles.

Democracy’s most well known feature is being free as can as possible. Person who lives in democratic country can do what s/he wants to do without abusing the other people’s rights,feelings and freedoms. Accordingly on this definition , people can access to internet when they want. They can communicate with each other or surf on the internet and no one can stop users. Internet is a new way of promoting democracy. It is a new area that capable for keeping in touch with billions of people. It does not need to rest or it never dies. However this event depend on governments and authorities’ attitude towards the internet.

As you imagine that, internet’s simplicity creates powerful interaction. This interaction ability leads billions of people’s attention. This interaction power and lots of people’s attention may cause a handicap for Authorities. Becouse of this great power States and Authorities want to control it. Thanks to the democracy, there is a obstacle for that. Our rights are saved by laws and governments can not inhibit our internet freedom. Let assume that all of the developing and developed countries are beindg governing with complete democracy.

In this circumstance,a large amount of people can reach various imformation easily. Only one click on the mouse opens a door to the rest of the world. Jamie Metzl describes the internet as a quick and cheap way of exchanging the information. It is a great invention that people may gain information very fast and very easy. People can announce their voice and express their ideas. People may also express themselves without the internet but internet makes this process faster. Sharing ideas has become easier with internet. Because internet provides flow of informatin without any corruption or changes.

For example (from Peter Brophy and Edward Helpin’s article), human rights organizations were challenging with authoritarian governments early 80’s but later internet usage has started to grow and they have gained adventage from internet. They published their articles and annunced their activities freely. In Peter Brophy and Edward Helpin’s article, Amnesty International which is an organization that protects human rights all over the world. In their Indonesia campaign , they used the online communication becouse government could not making intervention to that area.

Day by day Indonesian people have become more aware about their rights and resisted to government’s human rights abuses. Briefly , internet provides democratic rights for people. With internet’s contribitions people can understand the democracy in fast and easy way. Internet is such a great invention that it is easiest way to foster freedom. There is no militaristic pressure, police stick, or torture for readings, songs and idea expressions. It means that there is no this kind of scary affects for being free. People know that they can read, listen or say what they want with internet.

This is the main reason for internet’s popularity. Completely democratic countries have been allowing flow of information for many years. Except democratic and liberal countries’ citizens, people couldn’t express themselves freely before the invention of the internet. For example; in Turkey, in early 80’s lots of author was imprisoned by military because of their ideologies and books. Also military was burning ideological books. Even today Turkish citizens aren’t recognizing the complete freedom. However, it changed recently. Lately 90’s internet has become popular and there was no limitation for it.

That interval was the pure freedom for internet users. It is a fact that, only way for spread of an idea is communication. Frequency, power and speed of communication are directly proportional with dissemination of idea or information. A user’s idea could be effective on the other user. Different thoughts could become an ideology at the internet. For example; a couple months ago Turkish government has started to applying safe-internet which is software for limiting the internet. Popular bloggers wrote articles about it and they raise awareness about this law.

Firstly bloggers and a lot of users protest this issue on web but it didn’t be effective. After that bloggers planned a real protest at streets. They invited both internet users and civil public to strike this issue. Thousands of people responded this call and they protest that law because, government tried to abuse their internet freedom. However, some people argue that internet isn’t kind of a tool that helpful for democratic developments. In dictatorships and non-democratic countries internet doesn’t work properly while process of promoting the democracy.

Censorship issue and authoritarian pressures prevent flow of information. Not only civil people use the internet. Governments have their own websites or blogs. Public’s internet is being limited with same technology by governments. Civilian programmers call that the Censor ware. There are lots of ways for blocking or limiting access to websites. Most well-known are Web filters which programmed by states’ programmers. Another one is blocking the website. Jonathan Strickland mentioned this issue in his article. For Strickland, Governments block access to the web pages they identify as undesirable.

Undesirable means that the websites which criticizes the state’s ideology or contrary with government’s activities. As a result, these actions cause a counter belief for internet’s democracy foster power. In conclusion, many people believe that internet is accelerating the freedom and democracy in most of the countries. A few people disagreeing with that but generally thought of internet’s contributions to democracy is positive. Two main features of this technology are helping people which are fast and easy and fast accessibility and not corrupted information.