The topic being discussed is based on the aspect of internet free speech. The main argument is whether internet free speech should be universal or not. The author of the essay is against the idea of making internet free speech universal. He has, of course, cited a number of reasons why he is against the subject of internet free speech being made universal. The three fronts that the author has placed his arguments on include internet hate speech, child molestation and privacy. The approaches used to support these arguments are relatively weak. This essay will critique these three areas that the author has put forth and identify the weaknesses in each and also provide sufficient sources to support the criticism.

The first area of critic is the point of internet hate speech. The essay has exclusively determined that making internet free speech universal will automatically lead to internet hate speech. I agree with the fact that freedom of speech is quite a delicate matter and should be confined and managed within the confines of a country’s boundaries using certain laws. However, the idea of stating that free speech instigates violence and creates a platform on which people with like-minded negative kind of thinking gather is somewhat very categorical. The weakness in this argument majorly lies on the fact that the author is very biased and overlooks the positive effects that come with the freedom of speech over the internet. He has placed an equal sign between free speech and hate speech. It does not mean that if there is free speech, there is automatically hate speech (Flanagan, 134). I agree that there is hate speech going on over the internet but that does not mean that we should literally throw out the baby with the bath water. There should be measures that should help put in check these vices and see to it that the good that comes with the internet is not completely eroded by the bad.

Secondly, the author has discussed the issue of child molestation fuelled by the idea of internet free speech. First and foremost, the idea of not making internet free speech universal is not going to get rid of paedophiles and their motives. It is an issue that cannot be wished away. They will just use other methods to achieve their objectives, just as they did before the introduction of the internet to the society. Secondly, the author has not clarified on the direct negative effect that internet free speech is having on the children. The example given is somewhat out of line. The author has supported his claims by giving an example on predators on the internet. He has stated that the person on the other end of an online conversation is more effective in his ill motives than an individual who uses physical force to rape children and teenagers. Well, this might be slightly unfounded. Awareness is continually being created to teenagers who are mostly internet users to be cautious when conversing with people over the internet (Weaver, 78). They should therefore be more cautious and less vulnerable to the users they meet over the internet. According to my opinion, children are relatively more helpless to individuals who scheme and force themselves on them physically. Therefore, the safety of the children in the society will not be guaranteed through the regulation of the internet and an effort to ensure that internet free speech is not universal.

The third and final criticism is on the issue of privacy. The author has put privacy and argued it out on the premise that it has converted the world into a global village that has no legal oversight. People can do whatever they want to whoever they feel like and still be able to get away with it. I agree with the thought to that extent since there have been cases where people have caused harm on other people and there was nothing substantial that was done to bring them to justice. However, the aspect that analogy of internet free speech is to blame for this is not true in its entirety. People have been recently brought to book regarding to claims they have made in their blogs or accusations they have made in the social media. The main problem is that what might be legal in one country might be illegal in another country. An example is the infamous Wikileaks, which publishes secret information from a journalistic approach. The online, non-profit organization was initiated in Iceland in 2006 and the country’s approach regarding the matter of publishing information is quite legal for as long as the information is not false (Nunziato, 115). However, this rubs the wrong way with other countries like the United States of America, which is very strict about its security and government’s intelligence.

However, given the fact that there is internet free speech does not necessarily mean that people’s privacy will be completely altered. According to my own opinion, people post information regarding their lives at their own will. They are not subjected to join the popular social media sites either. Furthermore, there are terms and conditions that internet users are expected to adhere to, though almost all of them rarely read those documents. The idea of bringing up the issue of privacy as an issue that is affected by internet free speech is, from my point of view, slightly skewed.

In conclusion, the overall thesis of the essay is not completely true and does not have strong arguments to support them. The author lacks a critical approach as far as the issue of internet free speech is concerned and has been very biased. The idea of hate speech had a relatively strong conviction but it is a matter that can be put in check through putting relevant measures rather than interfering with the freedom of the internet. The issue of child molestation was completely off-balance. I agree that the internet creates a platform which paedophiles use to achieve their motives but teenagers using the internet know better than falling for what they have constantly been warned against. Finally, it is an individual’s choice to decide whether his or her life is private or public. Participating in the social media is a delicate matter and one should choose tread carefully. The internet has disadvantages as well as advantages. But it will be very unwise for one to step out and declare that the human race is not yet ready to handle civilization and should start by muffling the voices in the internet.