On Internet Censorship

Crump 5 On Internet Censorship

From the inception of the Internet, as a tool for government communications, there are those who try to censor the content displayed therein. Today, there are at least thirteen countries that censor a major part of the Internet (List). Those countries are not the only that censor the Internet; the majority of world powers at least censor the Internet some, including the United States and twenty-four other countries (Survey). As it stands, any government that values freedom of speech and expression should not be putting resources into Internet censorship. The censorship of the Internet violates our basic liberties as well as suppressing creativity and free thought. Many companies and groups also aid governments in censoring the Internet even though they say they intend to do no evil. The blocking of content on the Internet by world government is a serious violation of one’s most basic freedoms, the freedoms of free speech and expression. In the United States, the Constitution protects its people from any of the threats of oppressive governments. Specifically, the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This provision should put a stop to most forms of censorship, yet Internet censorship prevails at least some. The Children’s Internet Protection Act is one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the United States government to censor the Internet. The law forces any school or library that accepts public funding to install programs that block websites (Federal). These government funded censorship programs mean to “protect” children from “offensive” and sexually explicit material, yet these programs filter plenty of highly informational sites (Gauthier). Even without the

Crump 5 government-imposed censorship of computer systems, the information people are receiving is filtered based on the company they are using to search. Private companies like Google, who do business with countries that censor the Internet more, thoroughly seem to comply with such restrictions without much of a fight. Even when search companies do attempt to fight black, the usual resolutions end up with many pieces of information still blocked (Rosen). Many feel that American companies that do business in countries like China are not doing enough to resist the attempts by their governments to censor data. Some feel that these companies are helping the oppression of free speech become easier. The company Cisco has been criticized highly for these acts. A presentation for a Chinese subcommittee at Cisco showed that the company was helping the Chinese government with the “Golden Shield Project.” The project helps maintain China’s “great firewall” and to help repress information about religious groups that the Chinese government persecutes (Broache). Human rights activists are eagerly preparing a “Code of Conduct” that addresses American companies on how to operate over-seas. These activist groups are worried about companies becoming “… complicit in this censorship of the Internet.” Human Rights Watch, an activist group, brings to light the fact that some companies will even block access to material before the government even requests it censored, hoping to stay on the government’s good side. With the help of companies like Google, Yahoo, and Cisco, the Chinese government has been able to censor information of the Internet, close down sites of dissenters, and even arrest freedom fighters (Williams). One of the most important parts of liberty is our ability to express our thoughts; our ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment by our governing bodies. Art is one of the many forms of expression that people attempt to censor.

Crump 5 Many artists create works that people find offensive; these works tend to bring out a message that many do not agree with or they think is obscene. While many works of art push the borders of what people think is right and wrong, such as an art exhibit in Mexico did when the artist allowed a dog to starve to death as part of the display, as well as offending select groups, such as an American war exhibit that required one to walk on an American flag to see it. Just because one disagrees with what is shown does not mean that people should be allowed to ban the use of such language, thought, or Ideas. Such a case happened when WorldNetDaily alerted the FBI that Wikipedia was hosting child pornography. The offending image was an album cover for the metal band “Scorpions” from their 1976 album “Virgin Killer.” The album cover features a very young girl with no clothes in a suggestive pose, even though there is no actually nudity. On other parts of Wikipedia, there are other controversial pictures such as images on pages about strippers and the Dutch Mohammed illustrations. Groups like Morality in Media are catching on to Wikipedia now that it is becoming a renowned source for basic information. These groups try to get “offensive” content removed from Wikipedia, but The Wikimedia Foundation’s communications head says that censorship groups misunderstand how it defines appropriate content. He says, “It isn’t a matter of view or taste. If it is notable, the community tries to direct attention to that as a group and ask themselves if it’s an appropriate topic.” Even so, the community and administrators usually include all content except in the most extreme cases (Dye). No matter the reason for censorship, be it to protect minors from “harmful” material such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act does in America or the banning of hate speech, pornography, and “adult” rated videogames in Australia (Riley), or to satisfy an oppressive government and special interest groups,

Crump 5 censorship of art, speech, and other forms of expression go against everything that counties who “love liberty” stand for (Lewis). Whether we like it or not, the filtering of content on the Internet is on the rise all over the world and unless the countries of the West do away with such censorship, how may we hope to have freedom of information and expression in a not-so-distant future?

Crump 5

Works Cited Broache, Anne. “Senators weigh new laws over China online censorship.” News Blog – CNET News. 20 May 2008. CBS Interactive. 18 Apr. 2009 . Dye, Jessica. “Wikipedia Weighs Information Against Indecency.” EContent 31.6 (2008): 4-15. OmniFile Full Text Mega. H.W.Wilson. Columbia State Community College, Lawrenceburg, TN. 19 Apr. 2009 . Federal Communications Commission. Children’s Internet Protection Act. 27 Oct. 2008. 7 Apr. 2009 . Gauthier, Kelli. “Hamilton County: ACLU hits blocking of Web sites by schools.” Chattanooga Times-Free Press. 16 Apr. 2009. Tennessee Newspapers NewsBank Inc. Columbia State Community College, Lawrenceburg, TN. 18 Apr. 2009 . Lewis, Harry. “Not Your Father’s Censorship.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 55.19 (2009): B9-B10. OmniFile Full Text Mega. H.W.Wilson. Columbia State Community College, Lawrenceburg, TN. 18 Apr. 2009 . “List of the 13 Internet enemies.” Reporters Without Borders For Press Freedom. 7 Nov. 2006. 7 Apr 2009 . Riley, Duncan. “Australia Joins China in Censoring the Internet.” Techcrunch.com 30 Dec. 2007. TechCrunch. 19 Apr. 2009 .

Crump 5 Rosen, Jeffrey. “Freespeech on the web: is the internet really the bastion of free expression that we think it is? (TECHNOLOGY).” New York Times Upfront 141.9 (Can 12, 2009): 22(2). General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Columbia State Community College, Lawrenceburg, TN. 18 Apr. 2009 . “Survey of Government Internet Filtering Practices Indicates Increasing Internet Censorship.” Berkman Center for Internet & Society. 18 May 2007. Harvard University. 24 Mar. 2009 . Williams, Martyn. “Internet Censorship Code of Conduct in the Works.” PCWorld. 18 Mar. 2008. 17 Apr. 2009 .