The British Government has stirred much controversy after talks of limiting Twitter, Facebook, and other social media in order to stop talks of crime and civil unrest.

The New York Times reports Prime Minister David Cameron has called to restrict the use of the social media sites after this month’s riots, but many are calling it censorship.

This isn’t the first time a country’s tried to keep people from tweeting and facebooking during times of civil unrest.  In June, Iran took control of social media and attempted to limit internet access for the people.  According to another New York Times report, that only sparked more outcries of injustice, and increased online chatter about the government.

Leaders who support the idea of keeping the internet community quiet say it’s for the protection of the people. The more that zealous bloggers spread their ideas, the more violent the riots become.

But, opposers says it’s restricting speech and taking away people’s rights.

Where do you stand on this topic? Should governments be allowed to restrict social media chatter in times of civil unrest, or should people be allowed to speak freely?  What if the speech is stirring up violent riots? Should that speech be censored, and if so, how?

Leave us your comments below.