Chapter 3: Questions from Baase p 189

3.1 - Briefly explain the differences between common carriers, broadcasters, and publishers with respect to freedom of speech and control of content.
Common carriers are a medium of information (telephone, internet, etc), and many believe it should be restricted the least in terms of freedom of speech. It is highly protected by the first amendment, and content cannot be controlled, as the common carrier is not the publisher and has no legal responsibility (Baase, 146). Broadcast (TV and radio) are heavily regulated by the FCC, and they will threaten to revoke licenses for questionable material (146). They argue this is because the material can easily reach children at home, therefore content must be controlled (146). Print media (newspapers and magazines) have a few limitations. While advertisements and content are dictated by the publisher, there are very few restraints put on it by the government, though they were regulated more heavily in the past (145).

3.2 - Describe two methods parents can use to restrict access by their children to inappropriate material on the web.
The Child Online Protection Commission advocates for site filters - while they may not block everything and are entirely subjective, they nevertheless help filter out bad information, and may still help restrict inappropriate material (Baase, 154). They can also set up their child's email account with specialized settings; for example, they can specify which email addresses can actually send email to their children, or they may have the option to not even set up an email address for them at all, dramatically decreasing spam, scams and otherwise harmful material (160).

3.8 - One of the arguments used to justify increased government control of television content is that television is "invasive". It comes into the home and is more difficult to keep from children. Do you think this argument is strong enough to outweigh the First Amendment? Give reasons. Is this argument more valid for the Internet than for television, or less valid for the Internet than television? Give reasons.
I do not believe this is enough to outweigh the first amendment, as there is still a way to monitor what your children are watching. These days it's very simple to put a password on specific channels so that children don't have the option to view them; they may even need a password to even view any channel at all. Also, racier shows are usually on much later at night, so that a minor would usually be in bed before the show was even close to airing. I believe this is more valid for the internet than television, as while shows may have very questionable content, literally anybody can post anything they want on the internet with the click of a button. There is some very obscene material on the web, and if a child were to stumble onto it, results could be concerning.