free speech on the internet and censorship

Help strengthen public media. Our future depends on you.

The need for trusted journalism has never been greater.

PBS News Hour delivers the reliable, fact-based reporting you rely on, and your support ensures we can continue this essential work. Right now, your support goes twice as far—every gift is being matched, dollar for dollar.

Don’t wait—our match expires at midnight on December 31—this is your last chance to keep PBS News Hour strong in the year ahead. The future of public media depends on viewers like you.

If you can, please consider a monthly donation. Thank you.

Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Rebecca Boone, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/experts-say-attacks-on-free-speech-are-rising-across-the-us

Experts say attacks on free speech are rising across the U.S.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — In Idaho, an art exhibit was censored and teens were told they couldn’t testify in some legislative hearings. In Washington state, a lawmaker proposed a hotline so the government could track offensively biased statements, as well as hate crimes. In Florida, bloggers are fighting a bill that would force them to register with the state if they write posts criticizing public officials.

Meanwhile, bans on books and drag performances are growing increasingly common nationwide.

“We are seeing tremendous attacks on First Amendment freedoms across the country right now, at all levels of government. Censorship is proliferating, and it’s deeply troubling,” said Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“This year, we’re seeing a wave of bills targeting drag performances , where simply being gender nonconforming is enough to trigger the penalty. We’re also seeing a wave of bills regulating what can be in public or K-12 school libraries,” Cohn said. “On college campuses, we have been tracking data about attempts to get faculty members punished or even fired for speech or expression and the numbers are startling — it’s the highest rate that we’ve seen in our 20 years of existence.”

First Amendment rights had been stable in America for decades, said Ken Paulson, director of the  Free Speech Center  at Middle Tennessee State University, but in recent years many states have reverted to the anti-speech tactics employed by people like Sen. Joe McCarthy during the “Red Scare” of the early 1950s.

WATCH: Librarians in Louisiana at odds with conservative activists working to ban books

McCarthy and others tried to silence political opponents by accusing them of being communists or socialists, using fear and public accusations to suppress basic free speech rights. The term “McCarthyism” became synonymous with baseless attacks on free expression, and the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to the phenomena in several First Amendment-related rulings.

“We are seeing a concerted wave that we have not seen in decades,” said Paulson, highlighting states like Florida where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has pushed for legislation that would criminalize drag shows, limit what pronouns teachers can use for students, allow parents to determine what books can be in libraries and block some history classes entirely.

“It’s pretty mind-boggling that so many politicians are waving the flag of freedom while doing anything they possibly can to infringe on the free speech rights of Americans,” Paulson said.

Still, no one political group has a monopoly on censorship — aggression is increasing across the spectrum, Cohn said.

Washington state’s  bias hotline bill , which died in committee earlier this year, was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Javier Valdez and backed by several groups including the Anti-Defamation League, Urban League, Council on American-Islamic Relations and others. It aimed to help the state collect information about hate crimes and bias incidents and to provide support and compensation to victims at a time when  hate crime reports  are rising.

Opponents, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said they feared it would chill protected speech because it encompasses both criminal behavior and offensively biased statements.

Hate speech can be damaging and repugnant, but is still generally protected by the First Amendment. The Department of Homeland Security and experts who study extremism have warned that hateful rhetoric can be seen as a call to action by extremists groups.

READ MORE: Arizona’s conservative superintendent sets up critical race theory hotline

Oregon created a similar bias hotline in 2019. It received nearly 1,700 calls in 2021, with nearly 60 percent of the reported incidents falling short of criminal standards, according to an annual report  from Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s office.

“People in power target their political adversaries, so who is being silenced really depends on where you are on the map and its individual context,” Cohn said.

Artist Katrina Majkut experienced that first-hand last week, when artworks she had shown in more than two dozen states over the past decade were unexpectedly censored at a small state school in Lewiston, Idaho.

Majkut uses embroidery to highlight and subvert historically narrow ideas of wifedom and motherhood. She was hired to curate an exhibit at Lewis-Clark State College focusing on health care issues like chronic illness, pregnancy and gun violence.

But March 2, a day before the show’s opening, Majkut and two other artists were told some of their work would be removed over administrator fears about running afoul of Idaho’s “No Public Funds for Abortion Act.”

The 2021 law bars state-funded entities from promoting abortion or taking other measures that could be seen as training or counseling someone in favor of abortion.

Majkut’s  cross-stitch depicting misoprostol and mifepristone tablets  — which can be used together to induce abortion early in pregnancy — was removed from the exhibit along with a wall plaque detailing Idaho’s abortion laws.

Four documentary video and audio works by artist Lydia Nobles that showed women talking about their own experiences with abortion were also removed. And part of artist Michelle Harney’s series of 1920s-era letters written to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger were stricken from the show.

“To be censored like that is shocking and surreal,” said Majkut, who designs her art to be educational rather than confrontational. “If the most even-keeled, bipartisan artwork around this topic is censored, then everything is going to be censored.”

READ MORE: Florida Republicans advance bills on gender identity, defamation

Logan Fowler, the spokesman for LCSC, said the school made the decision after consulting with attorneys about whether showing the art could violate the law. Republican Rep. Bruce Skaug, the author of the law, said Tuesday that it was not intended to “prevent open discussion” of abortion — only to prevent tax dollars from being used to promote it.

The art exhibit censorship comes just two months after another controversial decision by Skaug. As chairman of the Idaho House Judiciary and Rules Committee, Skaug announced in January that people under age 18 would not be allowed to testify in his committee. Another Republican committee chair soon followed suit.

Lawmakers have the ability to limit committee testimony, and often use those limits to keep the legislature’s work focused and timely. Still, the age-based speech restriction appeared to be a first for the state.

A group of teens took action, launching phone and email campaigns staging protests.

“There is a clear lack of foresight in politicians who seek to eliminate the voices of those who will one day elect and eventually supersede them,” a group of 32 high school student leaders wrote in a joint  opinion piece sent to news outlets  across the state. “We ask Idaho’s Republican leaders, what are you so afraid of?”

The lawmakers eventually modified their rules, allowing youth to testify as long as they have signed permission slips from a parent or guardian.

Skaug said the rule was necessary to ensure parents are aware if their kids are leaving school to testify at the Statehouse. He still intends to give priority to older residents when testimony time is limited, but said he’s not aware of any youth actually being denied the chance to testify so far this year.

For Cohn, the efforts in Idaho and elsewhere reflect the danger of trying to restrict the expression of people who hold opposing views.

“We have to be ever-vigilant if we want our culture of individual freedoms to prevail,” he said. “Bad ideas are better dealt with through debate and dialogue than government censorship.”

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS News:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

College Board releases African American Studies course framework after DeSantis criticism

Nation Feb 01

Task Forces

Policy centers.

Free Speech Online at Risk? Implications of the Murthy v. Missouri Decision

Free speech has been a prevalent issue in 2024. This year, we have already seen threats to free speech on college campuses across the country , and now, potential threats to protected First Amendment speech on the internet. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently penned a letter to Congress confirming that his company was the target of a government jawboning operation to limit unfavorable speech online.

Zuckerberg’s bombshell letter came on the heels of a highly anticipated speech case at the Supreme Court earlier this year in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, state AGs in Missouri and Louisiana sought to prevent federal agents—including White House aides and agency officials like the FBI, CDC, and the Department of Homeland Security—from unconstitutionally coercing social media platforms to remove or restrict protected First Amendment speech on the government’s behalf.

Official actors were accused of orchestrating a coordinated campaign to restrict online content in conflict with the government’s position, especially posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and other sensitive subjects such as the Hunter Biden laptop story. To back up this claim, respondents presented documentation and testimony in prior legal proceedings demonstrating the U.S. government’s unprecedented, coordinated, multi-agency effort to pressure social media platforms to obey their post removal or censorship requests.

Far beyond the more traditional use of the presidential “bully pulpit” to persuade the public, it was revealed that Administration officials held standing meetings with social media company staff to monitor progress on their moderation efforts, and often badgered them with repeated follow up communications, sometimes threatening to increase regulatory scrutiny or even abolish vital Section 230 protections if they did not comply voluntarily.

The petitioners in this case—representatives of the federal government, including U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy—countered by insisting that the Administration was merely acting to protect the public from what they view as the spread of “misinformation” online. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher encouraged SCOTUS to quickly dispense with the case due to a lack of standing, sidestepping the merits question of government coercion altogether.

However, Zuckerberg’s letter to Congress tells a different story, revealing that “Senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content [in 2021], including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.” He also stated he “believe[s] the government pressure was wrong” and “regret[s] that [he was] not more outspoken about it.”

Ultimately, the Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence that the censorship of posts by social media platforms was due to threats from the Biden Administration; therefore, they lacked standing to sue.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, stating that there was more than enough evidence to establish standing to sue, and that while the censorship in the case was more “subtle” than others, such as NRA v. Vullo , which the Court also recently decided, it was “no less coercive.” Alito feared that these two decisions send a message that “[i]f a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by.”

ALEC’s Approach to Protecting Online Free Speech

ALEC members are staunch defenders of the First Amendment, which expressly prohibits the government from curbing the free speech rights of Americans. Recognizing this fact, members of our Communications and Technology Task Force adopted a model resolution in 2022 encouraging Congress to prohibit federal employees from using their official positions to censor speech or coerce social media platforms to censor speech on their behalf. It also urges Congress to perform robust oversight and hold executive agencies accountable for any attempts to censor protected speech.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from encroaching on Americans’ right to freedom of speech. When a government actor uses their official capacity to coerce social media platforms into deleting content they disagree with, this is government censorship by proxy.

While supporters argue that “misinformation” is harmful and ought to be removed from social media platforms, the answer cannot be government censorship of speech, especially when what is deemed “misinformation” can be highly subjective.

The Supreme Court has long abided by the Counterspeech Doctrine – a principle that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship or “enforced silence” as Justice Louis Brandeis put it. One example of an approach taken by a social media platform to ensure users see accurate information without censorship is X’s (formerly Twitter) use of Community Notes . This feature allows social media users to add additional context and “fact check” each other’s posts on the platform. These notes are written and voted on by X users, rather than a moderation team, and are only shown when agreed upon by enough voters with diverse perspectives.

The X case study demonstrates that it is possible to improve the quality of information on the internet without censorship or government intervention. Not only does government censorship violate Americans’ First Amendment rights, but it fails to achieve the stated goal of countering “misinformation,” prevents opposing views from being heard, and sets a dangerous precedent of allowing government to silence dissenting views.

• Published: September 17, 2024
• Issues: Free Speech
• Categories: Center to Protect Free Speech
• Tags: Online Speech Policy Solutions

In Depth: Free Speech

Freedom of speech is paramount for the American system of government and American culture. Born from revolution, American society has been created, evolved and progressed based in part, on the First Amendment. More specifically, free speech allows individual’s to use their own voice to ensure “We the People” would control…

+ Free Speech In Depth

Free Speech

Statement of principles on news censorship, internet free speech act, once again, harvard ranks dead last in free speech rankings, u.s. house of representatives passes campus free speech legislation, related model policies, resolution in support of congressional law to combat government pressuring of social media platforms to remove speech, latest articles, senator mike braun receives the laffer award at alec’s 2024 summit, federal tax reform forecast 2025: jonathan williams on american radio journal, powering states with common sense solutions: jonathan williams on newstalkstl, latest publications, essential policy solutions for 2025, 2023 alec annual report, rich states, poor states 17th edition.

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Internet

Ronald Kahn

Yi Li uses a computer terminal at the New York Public Library to access the Internet, Wednesday, June 12, 1996. The graduate student from Taiwan supports the federal court decision issued in Philadelphia on Wednesday that bans government censorship of the Internet. Yi Li fears that government control of the Internet could be used by authoritarians to control or confine people. "We can use the (free flow of) information to unite the world," she said. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, reprinted with permission from The Associated Press)

The Supreme Court faces special challenges in dealing with the regulation of speech on the internet. The internet’s unique qualities — such as its ability to spread potentially dangerous information quickly and widely, harass others , and provide an easy way for minors to access pornographic content — have prompted lawmakers to call for tighter restrictions on internet speech. 

Others argue that Congress and the courts should refrain from limiting the possibilities of the internet unnecessarily and prematurely because it is a technologically evolving medium. For its part, the Supreme Court continues to balance First Amendment precedents with the technological features of the medium.

Congress has tried to protect minors from internet pornography

One major area of internet regulation is  protecting minors from  pornography and other indecent or obscene speech . For example, Congress passed the  Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996 prohibiting “the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages” over the internet to minors. However, in 1997 the Supreme Court in  Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union struck down this law as being too vague. The court held that the regulation created a  chilling effect on speech and prohibited more speech than necessary to achieve the objective of protecting children.

The court also rejected the government’s arguments that speech on the internet should receive a reduced level of First Amendment protection, akin to that of the broadcast media which is regulated. Instead, the court ruled that speech on the internet should receive the highest level of First Amendment protection — like that extended to the print media.

In response to the court’s ruling, Congress in 1998 passed the  Child Online Protection Act (COPA) , which dealt only with minors’ access to commercial pornography and provided clear methods to be used by site owners to prevent access by minors. However, in 2004 the court struck down COPA in  Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , stating that less restrictive methods such as filtering and blocking should be used instead. The court suggested that these alternative methods were at least in theory more effective than those specified in COPA because of the large volume of foreign pornography that Congress cannot regulate.

The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to require libraries to install filters on their public computers to protect children from obscene material as a condition for receiving  federal aid to purchase computers. But the three dissenting justices in  United States v. American Library Association  (2003) viewed the requirement of filtering devices on library computers, which both adults and children must request to be unlocked, to be an overly broad restriction on adult access to protected speech.

Congress has attempted to criminalize virtual child pornography

Congress also ventured into the area of child pornography, passing the  Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in 1996. The CPPA criminalized virtual child pornography—that is, pornography that sexually depicts, or conveys the impression of depicting, minors. Although the act targeted computer-generated or altered works advertised as child pornography, in  Free Speech Coalition v. Reno  (9th Cir. 1999) the federal appeals court found some language in the statute to be so overly broad and vague that much protected speech would be covered under the CPPA. The court noted that the state’s interest in protecting children from the physical and psychological abuse arising from their participation in the making of pornography—the basis for its ban in  New York v. Ferber  (1982) —was not present in virtual child pornography.

People use computers to access the Internet at the Boston Public Library, in Boston, 2003. The Supreme Court said public libraries must make it harder for internet surfers to look at pornography or they will lose government funding. Justices ruled in United States v. American Library Association (2003) that the federal government can withhold money from libraries that won’t install blocking devices. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

‘Hit list’ of abortion doctors on website found to be ‘true threat’

U.S. courts have also dealt with other areas of internet speech that traditionally have been less protected or unprotected under the First Amendment.  Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists  (9th Cir. 2002) , decided by an en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centered on what constitutes dangerous speech and a true threat in the context of the internet.

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) posted the personal contact information of doctors who performed abortions, including details such as the names of their children. The names of doctors who had been murdered were crossed off and the names of those who had been wounded by anti-abortion activists were grayed. Although the site did not contain explicit threats, opponents argued that it was akin to a hit list, and the doctors on the list believed it to be a serious threat to their safety.

The appeals court held that the ACLA could be held liable for civil damages, and that the website did not contain political speech protected under the First Amendment. The court wrote: “It is the use of the ‘wanted’-type format in the context of the poster pattern—poster followed by murder—that constitutes the threat.” The posters were not “political hyperbole” because “[p]hysicians could well believe that ACLA would make good on the threat.” Thus it was a  true threat , not protected as political speech.

In an earlier case in 1997, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a different decision on violent material posted on the web and sent in emails by a university student, appearing to plan an attack on a woman at his college. Abraham Alkhabaz claimed the emails were mere fantasy. In  United States v. Alkhabaz,  and circuit court agreed, concluding that the messages did not constitute a true threat because they were not “conveyed to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation.”

Rights of anonymous speech not absolute on internet

The extent of the right to anonymous speech on the internet has also become an issue in some court cases. The Supreme Court has recognized  anonymity rights in speech , albeit not an absolute right, and lower courts have generally taken the same view when it comes to anonymous speech on the internet.

In “ The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online ,”   author Jeff Kosseff explores two cases,  Dentrite International, Inc. v. Doe  No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and  Cahill v. Doe , 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct., June 14, 2005), in which courts recognized relatively strong First Amendment presumptions on behalf of purveyors of anonymous speech, especially for those that are statements of opinions rather than obvious falsehoods, while recognizing that government sometimes has the right to identify such speakers when they have used their platforms to harass, engage in slander or sexual predation, make true threats, or allow foreign governments to influence U.S. elections.

This article was originally published in 2009 and was updated in March 2022.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please  donate now!

• Customer Portal
• (888) 894-6411

Our Core IT Services

More it services.

• Happy Clients
• Meet With Us

Balancing Internet Censorship and Freedom of Speech

In an age where the internet is both a boundless wellspring of knowledge and a potential arena for misinformation, the debate surrounding internet censorship and freedom of expression has reached an emotional pitch. The clash between controlling access to information and safeguarding free speech has created a complex and contentious discourse reverberating across the digital landscape.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is imperative to dissect the nuances of this debate, exploring its dimensions and implications for the fundamental principles of democracy and individual liberties.

The Balancing Act: Internet Censorship and Freedom of Expression

Once hailed as an open platform for free expression and the democratization of information, the internet has become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has empowered individuals to voice their thoughts, connect across borders, and mobilize for change. Conversely, it has enabled the spreading of harmful content, misinformation, and hate speech, raising concerns about societal well-being and public safety.

Governments, organizations, and platforms have grappled with finding the delicate equilibrium between curbing the dissemination of harmful content and upholding the principles of free speech. Internet censorship can take various forms, from content removal and website blocking to surveillance and data localization.

While proponents argue that such measures are necessary to maintain order and protect vulnerable populations, critics contend that they can be wielded as tools of control and suppression, stifling dissent and eroding democratic values.

The Implications for Free Speech

The crux of the debate lies in the intricate relationship between internet censorship and freedom of expression . Advocates of robust censorship assert that limiting access to harmful content is essential to prevent harm and maintain a harmonious digital ecosystem. They believe curbing misinformation and hate speech can promote a healthier online environment, fostering informed discourse and safeguarding vulnerable individuals.

Conversely, champions of free speech argue that any form of censorship, no matter how well-intentioned, risks infringing upon the cornerstone of democracy. They contend that suppressing dissenting voices, even those that may be unpopular or offensive, hampers the pursuit of truth and stifles the diversity of ideas that drive progress.

In their view, the potential for abuse and overreach by those in power is a grave concern, and the path to a truly open society lies in protecting the unfettered exchange of information regardless of its nature.

The Global Landscape

The debate surrounding internet censorship and freedom of expression is not confined to the borders of any one nation. In an interconnected world, decisions made by governments and platforms in one corner of the globe can reverberate across continents, impacting individuals’ digital experiences and rights everywhere. The tension between local laws, cultural norms, and global communication platforms further complicates the issue, highlighting the need for international dialogue and collaboration.

Quote from Our Founder and CIO

“Navigating the delicate balance between internet censorship and freedom of expression is a complex challenge. While we acknowledge the need to curtail harmful content, we must tread cautiously to protect the essence of free speech. Twintel stands as a proponent of open dialogue and diverse viewpoints.” – William Scogin, Founder and CIO of TWINTEL

Twintel’s Commitment to a Balanced Digital Future

At Twintel , we recognize the multifaceted nature of internet censorship and freedom of expression debate. Our mission is to facilitate informed discussions, empower individuals, and foster an environment where diverse perspectives can coexist. We believe in harnessing the power of technology to bridge gaps, facilitate dialogue, and amplify voices that contribute positively to society.

As the digital landscape evolves, we invite you to join us in navigating the intricate terrain of internet censorship and free speech. Together, let us forge a path that upholds the principles of democracy, embraces diversity, and preserves the essence of an open and interconnected world.

Learn more give  TWINTEL  a call at (888) 428-0599 or  schedule a meeting  today .

Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson is a passionate technology professional with over 11 years of experience in the Managed Services IT space and a wide variety of industry-leading certifications. Mark’s extensive Managed IT experience and aptitude for quickly learning and adapting to new technologies has equipped him to offer valuable insight across a broad spectrum of business technology solutions.

• Mark Johnson https://www.twintel.net/author/mark-johnson/ AI Transforming Weather Forecasting and Climate Modeling
• Mark Johnson https://www.twintel.net/author/mark-johnson/ Steps to Take If Your Computer Is Stolen
• Mark Johnson https://www.twintel.net/author/mark-johnson/ Summer Travel Hacks for an Unforgettable Vacation
• Mark Johnson https://www.twintel.net/author/mark-johnson/ The Benefits of Working Remote from Hotel Lobbies

Mark Johnson is a passionate technology professional with over 11 years of experience in the Managed Services IT space and a wide variety of industry-leading certifications. Mark’s extensive Managed IT experience and aptitude for quickly learning and adapting to new technologies has equipped him to offer valuable insight across a broad spectrum of business technology solutions. Mark's fascination with technology began at a young age when he learned to navigate DOS so that he could play games on his brother's Tandy 386 computer. Over the subsequent years, Mark developed skills in photography, videography, and non-linear editing, and he eventually studied Television Production. He worked on the sound team at his church and developed himself in technical and non-technical leadership roles. Ultimately, Mark’s desire to be always learning, progressing, and developing his knowledge led him to a career in Information Technology. As an IT Professional and consultant, Mark enjoys meeting with organizational leadership to understand their business, their team, their technology infrastructure, and their budget so that he can work closely with them to build solutions that leverage technology as a competitive advantage rather than a liability. His genuine openness and transparency allow him to quickly connect with clients to build lasting relationships based on trust and mutual respect. One of Mark’s greatest assets is his ability to listen and empathize with his clients, enabling him to understand their perspective and develop a unique plan to accommodate their needs. Whether that means reducing IT spend without impacting productivity or reducing the technology footprint in the network closet by transitioning systems and services to the cloud, his commitment to integrity and proven results has earned him a reputation as a trusted advisor to his clients. Mark is a devoted family man who prioritizes his role as a husband and father. He loves to spend time with his wife and three beautiful children hiking together, exploring new places, cooking new foods, and appreciating quiet evenings at home. His family is also actively involved in their local church, where they enjoy serving and contributing to the community. In conclusion, Mark Johnson is a passionate, family-oriented, and highly skilled technology professional with a wealth of experience in the Managed Services IT space. His love for technology, combined with his dedication to his clients, has made him a sought-after advisor and solution builder in the industry. " Even the most daunting of tasks is made up of many small steps. The key to success is to begin somewhere. Life is full of beginnings, and none of them are easy, but if you never get started, you’ll never enjoy the fruit of discipline or the possibility of achievement." - Mark Johnson

• Co-Managed IT
• Desktop & Server Support
• Cloud Services
• IT Security
• IT Consulting
• Data Backup & Recovery
• Voice & VOIP
• Wireless Network Support
• Software Services
• Conferencing Solutions
• Mobile Device Management
• High-Speed Internet Consulting
• Printer Management
• Structured Cabling
• Asset Procurement
• Asset Tracking
• Modern Office 360 Solution
• Office IT Setup & Relocation
• Staff Training and IT Education
• Virtual CIO Integration
• Get Support