The article that is subject to criticism in this context is titled ‘The Enigma of Internet Freedom’ written by Derek Bambauer. The author of the article not only advocates internet freedom, but also advices the readers to address and embrace the tradeoffs that come with it in order to achieve the freedom itself. He clearly states in the article’s thesis statement that the society should acknowledge the negative side of internet free speech and internet freedom in general. The author reiterates that the freedom of internet free speech is an inevitable agenda. The arguments are weak in a number of fronts. First and foremost, not everyone would want to deal with the internet, let alone the freedom that should come with it. People used to communicate and conduct their businesses’ way before the introduction of the internet, and some people still do. Therefore, stating that the vices that come with the internet are inevitable is somewhat unfounded. The second aspect that I will criticize from the article is the idea of the author to advocate that everyone should be entitled to internet access. He has given it the point of view that it should be treated as a basic need. The third and final aspect that I will address includes the approach that there should be one international governing body that will regulate the internet. This in itself will negatively affect the very same freedom that the author is advocating.

, yet it has brought unforeseen problems that affect the society. When people choose to participate in social media platforms and the internet in general, they do so at their will. In the current society, everyone is a free person, with a will, knowledge, rights and the freedom to decide what they want. The same people choose to share their private information with other users and are not obligated to do so. A few people have chosen to stay away from the internet and have tried to avoid the drama that usually comes with it (Flanagan 110). I concur with the author that most people are affected with the eventualities that occur on the internet, either politically or otherwise. However, instead of letting the possibility of problems occurring from the internet, it is safer for the internet to be regulated, and internet free speech should not be made universal. By strictly regulating internet free speech, there will be few or no cases of hate speech (Flanagan 113). Stating that everyone should embrace these negativities and still leave a window for people to use and spread their hate speech is quite improper. Such impropriety can be curbed if internet free speech is regulated.

Secondly, the idea that the internet should be a basic need for everyone as a means of promoting internet freedom is not accurate. Well, some countries like Finland have looked at the matter and treated it as a right to its citizens. Other nations, for example, the United States of America give it a market perspective, and it is, therefore, viewed as a privilege (Bambauer, 5). FirstNunziato 108). Therefore, coupling internet freedom with the right to internet access would further hinder internet free speech. Secondly, an individual would be freer to access the internet he or she has directly catered for than that which has been catered for by the government. The United Kingdom, a country whose citizens cater for their internet expenses, has a Digital Economy Act, a law that is used to suspend users’ accounts that have been reported to violate copyright rules (Bambauer 5). It also applies in regulating public forums and keeping hate speech in check. The aspect of having the government control the availability and access to the internet and not expecting it to control how it is going to be used is debatable. Nevertheless, it is clear from such examples that regulating internet speech helps in regulating hate speech and destructive material.

Finally, the author has addressed the question of who should be given the task of regulating the internet. The approach used by the author is that internet freedom would be effectively expressed if one international governing body is directed with the obligation of regulating the internet. This argument is weak and cannot be brought to fruition. First and foremost, countries around the world have different laws that govern their operations within the confines of their boundaries. Countries have separate opinions on what freedom is and how it should be approached (Weaver 58). Some countries look at it as giving an individual complete control to do what he or she pleases. Others have obligations and duties that come with these rules. So what happens when one international body steps out to regulate the internet? Will the rules and regulations drafted satisfy internet users across the globe? The simple solution is refraining from making internet free speech universal. Each country should govern the operation of their users using their laws and resources (Weaver, 58). Some of these uprisings against administrations that have been viewed to be oppressive or dictatorial have started form the internet. Well, these revolts might be based on the truth as well as basic opinion and conspiracy theories. An international body put up to regulate the internet will not only be subjected to double-standards, but will also be vulnerable to interference by other countries that might have an opinion that they are not being treated fairly.

Works Cited

Flanagan, Tom. Persona Non Grata: The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age. Virginia, FL: Signal   Publishers, 2014. Print.

Weaver, Russel. From Gutenberg to the Internet: Free Speech, Advancing Technology, and the     Implications for Democracy. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2013. Print.

Bambauer, Derek. The Enigma of Internet Freedom. Defining Internet Freedom. 17^th June, 2010 ,4-6. Web. 11^th August. 2014.

Nunziato, Dawn. Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age. Redwood City, CA: Stanford Law books (2009). (100-109)