Debate:Internet Censorship

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should governments censor material on the world wide web?

[]

Background and Context of Debate:

The internet is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass communication and information distribution in the world. It can be used to distribute large amounts of information anywhere in the world at a minimal cost. In the last ten years there has been increasing concern about damaging internet content from violence and sexual content to bomb-making instructions, terrorist activity and child pornography. Even if moral arguments surrounding internet censorship can be justified there remain practical problems with the regulation of such an international concept.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Internet medium: Is the Internet a medium that, as an enabler of powerful images and messages, deserves special censorship?

[]

[]

Yes

Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium, and as the Internet adopts more powerful mediums, it should be be limited more robustly: Accordingly there is a higher level of censorship attached to television, films and video than to newspapers and books. this is because we recognise that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and powerful then text and photographs or illustrations. There is also normally more regulation of videos then cinema films because the viewer of a video is a captive audience with the power to rewind, view again and distribute more widely. The internet, which increasingly uses video and sound should be attached the same level of power and regulated accordingly.

[]

[]

No

The distinction between censorship of the print and broadcast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It is quite possible that in ten years time people will be entirely reliant upon the internet for news and entertainment. The reason why the print media is comparatively unregulated is because recognise that this is the primary means of distributing information in society. For this reason the internet must be allowed the same protection When Mill and the founding fathers of the US constitution spoke of the freedom of the press they were concerned about the primary and most powerful organ of the media at that time, the print press. Nowadays they would more likely be concerned with preventing censorship of the broadcast media and the internet which are our prime means of distributing information.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

General censorship principles - Is censorship in any medium ever justified? Can limitations of the notion of "free speech" be created by governments?

[]

[]

Yes

Despite the generally prevailing principle of freedom of speech in democratic countries, it is widely accepted that certain types of speech are not given protection as they are deemed to be of insufficient value compared to the harm, they cause. Child pornography in the print or broadcast media for instance is never tolerated. The internet should be no exception to these basic standards. Truly offensive material such as hardcore pornography and extreme racial hatred are no different simply because they are published on the world wide web as opposed to a book or video.

[]

[]

No

Censorship is generally an evil and should be avoided where ever possible. Child pornography is an extreme example and there is already sufficient legislation to deal with those who attempt to produce, distribute or view such material. Other forms of speech may well be truly offensive but the only way a society can deal with them is by being exposed to them and combating them. Otherwise these groups are driven underground and become martyrs.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Feasibility: Is it feasible to censor the Internet?

[]

[]

Yes

That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we should not seek to do so: Analogous cases include the following. While it is extremely difficult already to prevent the sale of snuff movies or hard core pornography, governments do so because it is deemed to be of societal importance.

A level of censorship can be achieved by requiring that users log in before entering content: Anonymity provided by the internet gives pornographers and criminals the opportunity to abuse the medium. Asian countries have experimented with requiring citizens to provide identification before posting content on to the internet, such a system, if universally adopted, could be a relatively simple way of enforcing laws against truly offensive and harmful content.

Information Service Providers can be held responsible for censoring the content appearing through their site: In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent, the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) could be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography etc.

Counter that an international solution is possible: The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred etc. are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.

[]

[]

No

Internet censorship would be more or less impossible, particularly given that an improbable international censorship regime would be required. Governments can attempt to regulate what is produced in their own country but it would be impossible to regulate material from abroad. What would the point be in the USA in removing all domestic references to hardcore pornography when it is possible to access material from the United Kingdom or Sweden? It is also possible for citizens to produce material and store it in an overseas domain further complicating the issue. True freedom of speech requires anonymity in some cases to protect the author, the governments who have introduced ID requirements for internet use also deny many basic rights to their citizens. The internet allows citizens to criticize their government and distribute news and information without reprisal from the state, such a system clearly could not survive with ID requirements.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Internet Service Providers: Should Internet Service Providers be held accountable for the content that appears on their sites

[]

[]

Yes

Information Service Providers should be held responsible for censoring the content appearing through their sites: In most fields of publishing, responsibility for the censoring of content lies at the "top". TV networks, for example, are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the TV programs running on their networks fit certain protocols. On the Internet, therefore, Information Service Providers (ISPs) should similarly be held accountable for the content that appears on their sites. This means that they should be responsible for actually filtering and editing content.

[]

[]

No

Internet Service Providers are the wrong censorship bodies because their profit motive inhibits ethical censorship decision-making: There is already far too much control of this new technology by big business without also making them judge and jury of all internet content. Were there liability for allowing such material to be displayed, ISPs would inevitably err on the side of caution to protect their financial interests which would result in a much more heavily censored internet.

The sheer bulk of information ISPs allow to be published is such that vetting would be more or less impossible.

Market solutions in the industry are available and sufficient: What is required is self regulation by the industry recognising their responsibility to internet users but not imposing arbitrary and draconian restrictions upon its use. It is already possible for parents to use "Net nanny" browsers that will edit out offensive and inappropriate material for younger users.

[]

References:

[]

Motions:

• This House would censor the Internet
• This House calls for nannies on the Net
• This House would limit freedom of speech

[]

In legislation, policy, and the real world

[]

See also on Debatepedia:

[]

External links and resources:

• EEF (Electronic Frontier Foundation): Blue Ribbon Campaign
• Internet Cencorship
• ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union): CyberLiberties

[]

Books:

• Libraries the First Amendment and Cyberspace : What You Need to Know ^{Robert Peck}
• Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace : Freedom and Censorship on the Frontiers of the Online Revolution ^{Jonathan Wallace}
• On Liberty ^{John Mill}