Here in the United States, everyone’s minds are on jobs, the stagnant economy, and the upcoming presidential election — but some concerning sideshow items include a series of protests known as Occupy Wall Street, which have at times become violent and endangered the general public.  Often, protest groups both in the US and abroad have used social networking to coordinate gatherings and activities.  Do you think that in some circumstances it is okay for the government to temporarily lock down the social networks during times of civil unrest, for the safety and security of the country and its citizens?  Or do you think that there is never a good reason to hamper the Internet and any communications that take place over it?

A recent poll Europe revealed that the majority of British people do support shutting down social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter during times of civil unrest. Prime Minister David Cameron made a statement in August that the government would resort to temporarily blocking social media to prevent protesters from organizing. His threat spurred a flurry of discussions on free speech and the rights of people to organize.

Even so, some seventy percent “completely agree” or “agree somewhat” that social networking sites are fair game to be shut down by the government in order to prevent coordinated criminal activity.  In the poll, most young people responded that they are not in support of shutting down the social networks — and most who were in favor of government access and control were older.  You can learn more about this on directv.