Social media and many other things have played a significant role in our society in this modern civilisation. It has helped our current economy and community grow in many ways. But should people be punished for speaking freely online? The controversy I have chosen is whether people should have the right to free speech or be censored.

The things that are affecting the controversy are all of the world problems in the world that some would consider controversial. The people affected by it are the people who choose to speak out and end up getting censored. The people who benefit from it are the people who the news directly affects. For example, suppose one goes after a company with a significant role in the economy or something else. In that case, if someone has something that could bring down a large company, it will most likely be censored, and the person will get in trouble.

There are many stories of people who have experienced Censorship. Frequently it is people posting things on social media. However, several accounts of people have been censored because they have spoken out against companies. One report was from a former employee of Google (he was a Google engineer). His name was James Damore, and he wrote an article called "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" (WIRED). Last year, he made a document calling for a more open discussion diversity in google, he referenced a study on the gender gap between men and women. The response from his manager was, "I intend to silence these views; they are violently offensive." 

Censorship is the suppression of language, public communication, or other information. This can be done because such articles or other things are considered unfavourable, harmful and possibly sensitive. Other groups and institutions can propose and apply for Censorship. 

There are many pros as well as cons to Censorship." Censorship creates the chance to set common-sense limits." (FutureofWorking). As for this era, there are some things that some people would deem not healthy. Censorship limits access to harmful activities, and since there are more minor children on the internet, this is very key. It can make the impact of identity theft smaller; by limiting the content to which personal information can be easily shared, the result of theft of personal information on society can be reduced. The final pro is that it can stop fake news and the spread of it. With Censorship, sites can filter through it and see what is fake and accurate so that the fake does not get published. 

Who are the people that censor the things that are deemed unworthy? These people, whomever they will, have their own biases. It also stops information, whether it be fake or not, from getting to the public. It is also quite costly to censor people, 2015 internet shutdowns cost some countries 2.4 billion dollars, and in Egypt, it cost over 90 million dollars (Center for technology innovation). It can shift where responsibilities lie because they are no longer responsible for their decisions if people may be censored. A lack of news or knowledge can lead to ignorance on specific topics. Censorship should not be allowed because it takes away your freedom; young people, especially activists, should have the right to post. People should have the right to express themselves freely.

Censorship is a problem as well as a solution, to say. People often have information that could cripple major companies or negatively hurt someone's reputation.  However, people do not censor something without reason; otherwise, they would waste money on something that has no effect. One final thought is from an article by UCF (University of Florida) "Free-speech idealists argue that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. But bad speech can, and often does, drown out the good" (UCF Today).