An informed public is supposed to be the core of any democracy. It is the reason why the U.S. Constitution protected newspapers with the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers had no way of foreseeing other forms of media. While the law has evolved overtime to include technology enabled forums, now that the majority of young people receive their news from the Internet the old set of free speech protections might not be enough to maintain an informed public.

For people ages 18 to 29 the Internet is the main source of news, according to a Pew Research Center study. A near super-majority of 65 percent of people younger than 30 used online sources to learn about the news, which represents twice the number from only three years earlier. The young demographic were not alone in seeking out online media for information. The number of adults in the United States using the Internet as their primary source of news sits at 41 percent.

While television remains the chief source of information for older Americans the growing influence of the Internet, especially among young people spell an evaporating market share for older media sources. The figures from the Pew Survey reflect the rise of new social media outlets. Twitter and Facebook news feed have rapidly grown since 2007. Facebook now has more than 500 million users and Twitter has more than 90 million “tweets” daily. However, more tv companies, such as direct.tv are synching their services with the internet. You can download and app to access news channels directly from your smartphone or tablet computer.

Who controls this flow of information? The owner of the printing press once controlled the news. Now the Internet allows nearly anyone to be a publisher, but the issue of net neutrality brings this tradition into question. Do the companies that provide the infrastructure to provide the Internet have the legal right to control the flow of information? Can AT&T prevent negative press from reaching its subscribers?

As the world tunes into the Internet for information in increasingly greater numbers the question of protected speech versus business rights get raised again.