Unit 7: Discussion - Censored Information?!? Many countries, such as China, have
ID: 3767334 • Letter: U
Question
Unit 7: Discussion - Censored Information?!?
Many countries, such as China, have laws that control the content of the Internet and restrict their citizens’ access to information. The United States, with the exception of specific areas such as cyberbullying and child pornography, doesn’t currently take steps to restrict its citizens’ access to the Internet. Unfortunately, this freedom of information does carry some cost because some information on the web can potentially be dangerous to the general public.
Do you think the U.S. government should censor information on the web, such as instructions for making weapons, to protect the general public? Why or why not? If you think there should be some censorship, do you think such a law would violate the First Amendment right to free speech? Explain your answer.
Would you be willing to live with a lower level of information access to increase your sense of well-being? What topics do you feel would make you feel more secure if they were censored?
Explanation / Answer
Internet Censorship:
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.
The extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. While most democratic countries have moderate Internet censorship, other countries go as far as to limit the access of information such as news and suppress discussion among citizens. Internet censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests, and riots. An example is the increased censorship due to the events of the Arab Spring. Other areas of censorship include copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material.
Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. In a 2012 Internet Society survey 71% of respondents agreed that "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet". In the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right" and 86% agreed that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet". According to GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use virtual private networks to circumvent censorship or for increased level of privacy.
Overview
Many of the issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and film. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.
Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:
A 1993 Time Magazine article quotes computer scientist John Gilmore, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as saying "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
In November 2007, "Father of the Internet" Vint Cerf stated that he sees government control of the Internet failing because the Web is almost entirely privately owned.
A report of research conducted in 2007 and published in 2009 by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University stated that: "We are confident that the [ censorship circumvention ] tool developers will for the most part keep ahead of the governments' blocking efforts", but also that "...we believe that less than two percent of all filtered Internet users use circumvention tools".
In contrast, a 2011 report by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute published by UNESCO concludes "... the control of information on the Internet and Web is certainly feasible, and technological advances do not therefore guarantee greater freedom of speech.
Blocking and filtering can be based on relatively static blacklists or be determined more dynamically based on a real-time examination of the information being exchanged. Blacklists may be produced manually or automatically and are often not available to non-customers of the blocking software. Blocking or filtering can be done at a centralized national level, at a decentralized sub-national level, or at an institutional level, for example in libraries, universities or Internet cafes. Blocking and filtering may also vary within a country across different ISPs. Countries may filter sensitive content on an ongoing basis and/or introduce temporary filtering during key time periods such as elections. In some cases the censoring authorities may surreptitiously block content to mislead the public into believing that censorship has not been applied. This is achieved by returning a fake "Not Found" error message when an attempt is made to access a blocked web.
Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea or Cuba, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in China, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.
The term "splinternet" is sometimes used to describe the effects of national firewalls. The verb "rivercrab" colloquially refers to censorship of the Internet, particularly in Asia.
Content suppression methods
Technical censorship
Approaches
Internet content is subject to technical censorship methods, including:
Internet Protocol (IP) address blocking: Access to a certain IP address is denied. If the target Web site is hosted in a shared hosting server, all websites on the same server will be blocked. This affects IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find proxies that have access to the target websites, but proxies may be jammed or blocked, and some Web sites, such as Wikipedia (when editing), also block proxies. Some large websites such as Google have allocated additional IP addresses to circumvent the block, but later the block was extended to cover the new addresses.
Domain name system (DNS) filtering and redirection: Blocked domain names are not resolved, or an incorrect IP address is returned via DNS hijacking or other means. This affects all IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find an alternative DNS resolver that resolves domain names correctly, but domain name servers are subject to blockage as well, especially IP address blocking. Another workaround is to bypass DNS if the IP address is obtainable from other sources and is not itself blocked. Examples are modifying the Hosts file or typing the IP address instead of the domain name as part of a URL given to a Web browser.
Uniform Resource Locator filtering: URL strings are scanned for target keywords regardless of the domain name specified in the URL. This affects the HTTP protocol. Typical circumvention methods are to use escaped characters in the URL, or to use encrypted protocols such as VPN and TLS/SSL.
Packet filtering: Terminate TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial keywords are detected. This affects all TCP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP, but Search engine results pages are more likely to be censored. Typical circumvention methods are to use encrypted connections – such as VPN and TLS/SSL – to escape the HTML content, or by reducing the TCP/IP stack's MTU/MSS to reduce the amount of text contained in a given packet.
Connection reset: If a previous TCP connection is blocked by the filter, future connection attempts from both sides can also be blocked for some variable amount of time. Depending on the location of the block, other users or websites may also be blocked, if the communication is routed through the blocking location. A circumvention method is to ignore the reset packet sent by the firewall.
Network disconnection: A technically simpler method of Internet censorship is to completely cut off all routers, either by software or by hardware (turning off machines, pulling out cables). This appears to have been the case on 27/28 January 2011 during the 2011 Egyptian protests, in what has been widely described as an "unprecedented" internet block.[13][14] About 3500 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routes to Egyptian networks were shut down from about 22:10 to 22:35 UTC 27 January. This full block was implemented without cutting off major intercontinental fibre-optic links, with Renesys stating on 27 January, "Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now. Full blocks also occurred in Myanmar/Burma in 2007,[15] Libya in 2011, and Syria during the Syrian civil war.
Portal censorship and search result removal: Major portals, including search engines, may exclude web sites that they would ordinarily include. This renders a site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When a major portal does this, it has a similar effect as censorship. Sometimes this exclusion is done to satisfy a legal or other requirement, other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal. For example, Google.de and Google.fr remove Neo-Nazi and other listings in compliance with German and French law.
Computer network attacks: Denial-of-service attacks and attacks that deface opposition websites can produce the same result as other blocking techniques, preventing or limiting access to certain websites or other online services, although only for a limited period of time. This technique might be used during the lead up to an election or some other sensitive period. It is more frequently used by non-state actors seeking to disrupt services.
See also: Internet forum § Word censor and Anti-spam techniques § Detecting spam
Over- and under-blocking
Technical censorship techniques are subject to both over- and under-blocking since it is often impossible to always block exactly the targeted content without blocking other permissible material or allowing some access to targeted material and so providing more or less protection than desired.An example is that automatic censorship against sexual words in matter for children, set to block the word "cunt", has been known to block the Lincolnshire placename Scunthorpe. Another example is blocking an IP-address of a server that hosts multiple websites, which prevents access to all of the websites rather than just those that contain content deemed offensive.
According to a report produced in 1997 by the gay rights group GLAAD, many 1990s-era Internet censorship software products prevent access to non-pornographic LGBT-related material.
Use of commercial filtering software
Screenshot of Websense blocking Facebook in an organisation where it has been configured to block a category named "Personals and Dating"
Main article: Content-control software
Writing in 2009 Ronald Deibert, professor of political science at the University of Toronto and co-founder and one of the principal investigators of the OpenNet Initiative, and, writing in 2011, Evgeny Morzov, a visiting scholar at Stanford University and an Op-Ed contributor to the New York Times, explain that companies in the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, Canada, and South Africa are in part responsible for the increasing sophistication of online content filtering worldwide. While the off-the-shelf filtering software sold by Internet security companies are primarily marketed to businesses and individuals seeking to protect themselves and their employees and families, they are also used by governments to block what they consider sensitive content.
Among the most popular filtering software programs is SmartFilter by Secure Computing in California, which was bought by McAfee in 2008. SmartFilter has been used by Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, and Oman, as well as the United States and the UK. Myanmar and Yemen have used filtering software from Websense. The Canadian-made commercial filter Netsweeper is used in Qatar, the UAE, and Yemen.
On 12 March 2013 in a Special report on Internet Surveillance, Reporters Without Borders named five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet": Amesys (France), Blue Coat Systems (U.S.), Gamma (UK and Germany), Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany). The companies sell products that are liable to be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information. RWB said that the list is not exhaustive and will be expanded in the coming months.
In a U.S. lawsuit filed in May 2011, Cisco Systems is accused of helping the Chinese Government build a firewall, known widely as the Golden Shield, to censor the Internet and keep tabs on dissidents. Cisco said it had made nothing special for China. Cisco is also accused of aiding the Chinese government in monitoring and apprehending members of the banned Falun Gong group.
Many filtering programs allow blocking to be configured based on dozens of categories and sub-categories such as these from Websense: "abortion" (pro-life, pro-choice), "adult material" (adult content, lingerie and swimsuit, nudity, sex, sex education), "advocacy groups" (sites that promote change or reform in public policy, public opinion, social practice, economic activities, and relationships), "drugs" (abused drugs, marijuana, prescribed medications, supplements and unregulated compounds), "religion" (non-traditional religions occult and folklore, traditional religions), The blocking categories used by the filtering programs may contain errors leading to the unintended blocking of websites. The blocking of DailyMotion in early 2007 by Tunisian authorities was, according to the OpenNet Initiative, due to Secure Computing wrongly categorizing DailyMotion as pornography for its SmartFilter filtering software. It was initially thought that Tunisia had blocked DailyMotion due to satirical videos about human rights violations in Tunisia, but after Secure Computing corrected the mistake access to DailyMotion was gradually restored in Tunisia.
Organizations such as the Global Network Initiative, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union have successfully lobbied some vendors such as Websense to make changes to their software, to refrain from doing business with repressive governments, and to educate schools who have inadvertently reconfigured their filtering softwaretoo strictly.Nevertheless, regulations and accountability related to the use of commercial filters and servicesare often non-existent, and there is relatively little oversight from civil society or other independent groups. Vendors often consider information about what sites and content is blocked valuable intellectual property that is not made available outside the company, sometimes not even to the organizations purchasing the filters. Thus by relying upon out-of-the-box filtering systems, the detailed task of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech may be outsourced to the commercial vendors.
Non-technical censorship
Main article: Censorship
Internet content is also subject to censorship methods similar to those used with more traditional media. For example:
Laws and regulations may prohibit various types of content and/or require that content be removed or blocked either proactively or in response to requests.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may receive formal and informal requests to remove, alter, slant, or block access to specific sites or content.
Publishers and authors may accept bribes to include, withdraw, or slant the information they present.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to civil lawsuits.
Equipment may be confiscated and/or destroyed.
Publishers and ISPs may be closed or required licenses may be withheld or revoked.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to boycotts.
Publishers, authors, and their families may be subject to threats, attacks, beatings, and even murder.
Publishers, authors, and their families may be threatened with or actually lose their jobs.
Individuals may be paid to write articles and comments in support of particular positions or attacking opposition positions, usually without acknowledging the payments to readers and viewers.
Censors may create their own online publications and Web sites to guide online opinion.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to restrictive licensing policies or high costs.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to a lack of the necessary infrastructure, deliberate or not.
Internet Censorship and the Freedom of Speech:
Freedom of speech is a right of the citizens of the United States; on the other hand, this freedom is not absolute to the point that society thinks that it is. Some forms of speech are thoroughly outlawed in the US such as fraudulent advertising, child pornography, obscenity, fighting words, help-wanted ads that discriminate on the basis of race, words used in a criminal transaction, unlicensed broadcasts, libel, speech that infringes a copyright, and unauthorized disclosure of data used to make atomic weapons (Turner 28). Naturally, most of these forms of speech have a compelling government interest. Government may regulate, or censor speech if it has a compelling interest, is a public concern, or threatens national safety. In turn, this demonstrates that the ideas and expressions of private institutions cannot be regulated, unless one of the preceding requirements is met. William Turner writes that “Government may not restrict or penalize speech because of its content or its viewpoint. It must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas” (29). Overall, government may not regulate speech, unless there is a major national, or public concern.
Lately, the Internet, a technological masterpiece, has been the subject of great controversy. Certain individuals feel as though the Internet should be governmentally regulated and censored in order to protect the youth of America. On the other hand, the regulation of material on the Internet would, in fact, violate the First Amendment right to free speech and expression. Thomas Emerson once stated “Those who seek to impose limitation on expression do so ordinarily in order to forestall some anticipated effect of expression in causing or influencing other conduct” (20).
In essence, this means that governmental censorship would primarily attempt to stop an unintentional effect of certain speech or expression on the Internet; in other words, the government would be opposing the idea of individualism in society. When controlling what people read or view, whether in a book or on a computer monitor, the government limits people’s ideas and their thought capacities. Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, stated “Freedom of speech meant not only freedom from any form of governmental control, but also freedom from private social pressures that could also inhibit thought and opinion” (113). As citizens of the United States, individuals have the right to be free from governmental control that inhibits thoughts, ideas, and free expression.
Every individual in America has the right to read or view whatever book or magazine they choose. How should this be different from viewing the same type of material on the Internet? In fact, the same battle with censorship has happened with novels. Books such as James Joyce’s Ulysses, J. D. Salinger’s Catcher In the Rye, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have all been subjected to regulations by school “authorities” who know what is best for student morale. The Supreme Court’s reaction to the correlation between books and Internet regulation is “. . . that differences in characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them” (Turner 30). Their reasoning process for this is correct: new problems facilitate new regulations and laws. However, new regulations contradict the Constitution’s amendments, therefore depriving individuals of their right to free speech. One might think that the government does not understand the differences between other media, such as television, and the Internet. The Internet is an interactive experience in which the user selects what he or she will view. Also, the technology of the Internet does not allow people who post information to control who receives it. Overall, the Internet is an extremely different form of media, but that fact should not subject it different censorship laws.
In the past couple of years, there have been two attempts by Congress to limit material on the Internet; both of these ideas came in the form of bills that were designed to “clean up” indecent material on the Internet that was being viewed by minors. Under strict scrutiny, these bills were entitled the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act.
The first attack on the Internet came when the Communications Decency Act surfaced in the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fought against this bill that stated:
“whoever uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs . . . shall be fined under Title 18, or be imprisoned no more than two years, or both.” (Reno v. ACLU)
Obviously, under this bill, the government would decide what is considered as “patently offensive.” What may be offensive to one person, may not be to another. This bill would have severely restricted private Internet organizations had it not been struck down in the court case Reno v. ACLU. Reasoning for the destruction of this bill was that government attempts “to censor cyberspace abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment” (“Court”).
The most recent Internet censorship proposal was viewed in the Child Online Protection Act. In another court case involving Attorney General Janet Reno and the ACLU, this act stated that “whoever knowingly . . . makes any communication for commercial purposes [by means of the World Wide Web] that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined. . ., imprisoned. . . , or both.” (ACLU v. Reno) This act has been proposed and voted on, but a federal judge has blocked enforcement of the bill, which is being deliberated on now (“Peacefire.org”).
Both of these bills are attempting to regulate private Internet organizations’ thoughts, expressions, and ideas. Many feel as though Internet censorship deprives individuals of their freedom to expression, and speech. Frederick Schauer states:
“the separation between the individual and government is central to the Free Speech Principle, and this feature is often lost when . . . we conflate social intolerance and governmental intolerance” (122).
Governmental regulation of thoughts and ideas results in less freedom, therefore condoning less wisdom; these, in turn, result in the absence of individualistic character which is necessary in a democratic society.
Government believes that it knows what is best for society; however, this can also be seen as those who are in power know what is the best method to keep power. Censorship is a possible way for the powerful to terminate individualism, wisdom, and the marketplace of ideas; it not only facilitates less freedom, but also promotes governmental coercion, collectivism, and possibly totalitarianism. Preventing individuals from exploring others’ thoughts and ideas is a way to prevent the expansion of knowledge and power. Franklyn Haiman notes that “. . . coercion that is exercised as a means to prevent the frustration of the common good is worthy of respect and love. . . Restrictions are valid only if they are for the sake of a greater good, a greater liberty . . .” (200).
Censorship is a restriction that is not for greater liberty, but for the deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court’s solution to this problem is to enforce laws that make it illegal to express one’s opinion, or ideas on the Internet. However, I feel as though there is a more efficient way to control obscene material on the Internet. Through the use of special programs designed to filter obscene Internet material, parents can allow their children to enjoy the Internet without the risk of viewing inappropriate images or ideas. Parental regulation is the only way to allow unregulated Internet use and the expansion of knowledge. Even the Clinton administration stated that “unnecessary regulation could cripple the growth and diversity of the Internet . . . the administration supports industry self-regulation, adoption of competing ratings system and development of easy-to-use technical solutions . . . .” (“White”).
In my opinion, parental regulation is much better than the restriction of civil liberties. With parental regulation in mind, there could possibly be some flaws. The choice of whether or not to censor the Internet is left up to the minor’s parent. In some households, parents may decide not to regulate anything that a child encounters on the computer. Other times, though, parents will avidly approve of censoring everything that they consider obscene or offensive to minors. Also, schools should not use theses filtering programs, but, instead, they should have a parental figure constantly monitor student Internet use. Other than parental negligence, I think these home filtering programs would work to protect minors from viewing information that others feel is inappropriate.
As Americans, we take pride in the fact that we are able to say whatever we want, read whatever we want, and think whatever we want, with few limitations. When those liberties are stolen from us, government has usually enacted a bill or regulation for the “good” of society. For example, censorship is used to “protect our youth”, which in turn, deprives us of our freedom of speech; this is also used to limit individualism and the expansion of ideas. Censorship is a way for government to “protect” society from what the government thinks is inappropriate. Wherever media is present, censorship will be involved. Some government regulation can be productive; then again, depriving individuals of their freedom of speech is not facilitating everyone’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. However, I think that Mieczyslaw Maneli said it best when he stated:
“Wherever there is a loophole in the existing laws protecting traditional American liberties, the opponents of these freedoms try to squeeze in. Whenever legislators create the slightest opening to allow some kind of censorship, the censors will be born and will march again.” (375)
These are questions critical to our society. While some information is dangerous or harmful, students need to also grapple with who would make the determination of what is dangerous or harmful. Is it possible to have just a little censorship and not have the threat of it growing out of control? Can ideas be dangerous? If so, should they be controlled? To whom are ideas dangerous? Why are they dan-gerous? Students will benefit from spending some time in recognizing the issues that are involved in these questions, and how these issues were dealt with by the writers of our governing documents during earlier times with less sophisticated technology. Students should consider whether this country would be better off with new amendments or from revising existing amendments. Students should support their viewpoints. Consensus is probably not possible or realistic!
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.