Censorship on the Internet - Essay Example

? Policy Paper INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE GREAT FIREWALL 10 June The controversy on internet censorship rages on as opposingparties differ on whether Australia should or should not have censorship on the internet, because of its legal, practical, and ethical implications. Internet censorship is a way to control or suppress information that is on the Internet and can be spearheaded by the government. It presents legal issues that are similar to offline censorship, such as infringement on freedom of expression. Australia is on the route to internet censorship, which reeks of an impending Great Firewall scenario. The Rudd government of Australia wants to introduce the ‘Clean Feed’ project to control internet content. ‘Clean Feed’ aims to censor material on the internet for all Australians, ultimately blocking some forms of content for all individuals, mainly pornography, and possibly other controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia (Courier Mail; Daily Telegraph). This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of internet censorship. It argues that the government no longer needs to spend millions on internet censorship, because it cannot achieve the outcomes it aims for, because there are already many ways of accessing controversial and illegal content. Instead, the government should focus on generating a self-censorship policy, which focuses on educating the public, especially schools and parents, in using free internet censorship software and in educating the people about the harms of accessing illicit content on the web. Internet censorship is not entirely flawed, because the principle behind it is that the internet should be a safe virtual space for everyone, especially children. Children should be protected from pornographic content, and being victims of pornography too (Flood). Flood shows that “children and adolescents may be shocked or disturbed by premature or inadvertent encounters with sexually explicit material per se” (388). Since the internet has become increasingly accessible and prominent among the youth, the government also has a responsibility to prevent children’s access to pornography online. The Christian Lobby's Jim Wallace tells the Four Corners that he finds it "quite amazing" that anyone would be against the filter plans (Ross). He asserts his own censorship ideals: "The bigger principle here is to establish the principle that the internet is not a free zone and I think that given the movement of technology and given the expectation of society that what the Government is proposing is therefore a good solution” (Ross). He adds: "We've lobbied the Government of course and we've lobbied quite hard. We got the first commitment to this prior to the last election and you know we're happy to see that the Government is delivering on it.” (Ross). Furthermore, many of these sexual websites have viruses and other computer programs that can harm computers. The Rudd government believes that internet censorship can make the internet a more family-friendly environment and a safer place for children to explore. It then aims to filter questionable content, such as pornography, abortion, profanity, sexual content, suicide and any other material that may seem obscene and unfit for children (Courier Mail; Daily Telegraph). It does so in the role of a caring parent, who seeks to guide the moral development of the nation’s children. Internet censorship is not all-encompassing, so it does not entirely obstruct the freedom of speech. Internet censorship is limited in reach and impact in Australia. The Clean Feed is designed to have two filters, one being a mandatory stipulation for all Internet Service Providers, and this will target illegal web pages, terrorism, and child pornography. The second filter will censor out all material which is rated R material. This filter will be an optional filter for people in the household. This means that internet censorship remains as a form of self-censorship, with options for opting out for some internet controls (Fisher). There will be no Great Firewall, as it refers to China’s internet censorship practices and schemes. There will only be government efforts to control access to some questionable content. Internet censorship is aligned with the moral scruples of one’s culture; it only aims to remove indecent material and in essence, promote cultural values that Australians want to support and spread in society. The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, says that that people have some cultural taboos and that people, especially children, should be protected from illegal or questionable internet material (Farrell). This includes pornographic material, as well as sexual violence and instructions on crime (Farrell). This range of control actions relates to the idea of cultural integrity and the government believes that it was elected based also on this filtering platform. This means that the public supports internet censorship that affirms social and cultural aspirations (Ross). Internet censorship aims to promote cultural integrity, wherein the government seeks to prevent other factors to influence the cultural development of present and future generations. Censorship has already been implemented in other countries and so Australia is not outstanding in its approach. China, Denmark, South Korea, and Great Britain have already filtered certain websites (Cannici; Fish). They have censors for certain illicit materials, because they also believe that the government should do something about the rapid distribution of distasteful content online. Conroy also says that more than 15 western countries had supported or implemented Internet filtering, and there is no reason why Australians should not have comparable "protection" (Farrell). Farrell, however, responds with a sarcastic tone: “Countries that do clean the Internet include Communist China and North Korea, the Islamic theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran,” as well as “a number of other less than democratic countries in the Middle East and a few tin-pot dictatorships here and there.” For him, Australia will remain as the only western nation with distinct internet filter controls. Despite the well-meaning goals of internet censorship, one of its criticisms is its undue costs to taxpayers. The implementation of the Clean Feed will cost 125.8 million dollars. Today in 2011, Julia Gillard, the new Prime Minister, continues to enforce internet censorship for the country of Australia which costs millions. This amount of funds should rather be used in implementing education programs about the internet’s proper use and access, instead of being wasted on internet censorship that has no clear outcomes. This cost will also not ensure its effectiveness, which will be discussed subsequently. Aside from the costs, internet censorship cannot effectively block obscene content, which makes it ineffective in controlling illegal content. Levy talks about how spammers use particular, seemingly innocent keywords that can still direct users to illicit websites or suggest illicit websites. An example is what happened in Google China, where Chinese officials showed that after typing in the word meaning "son," one of the Google Suggest terms was "love affair between son and mother." Newton provides an example of hacking internet filters, which again make internet censorship ineffective. Farrell agrees that internet censorship will be ineffective, since there are many ways around it, both from the side of the censored publishers and internet users. Ross stresses that it is superficial to say that internet censorship is effective, because it can be circumvented by using completely legal services like 'proxy servers' and 'Virtual Private Networks,' which are habitually used by corporate employees. It will be easy to skirt the government’s blacklist at the publisher's end too. Lately, tech site, Gizmodo demonstrates how a blocked page could successfully get off the blacklist by putting a question mark to the conclusion of the web address thus changing the address enough to make it dissimilar (Ross). If that successive web address was then blocked then any number of pointless mixtures of letters and numbers could be included to the end of the address to evade blocking too (Ross). It will just be spurious game with no end, but the losers are clearly the people who are paying millions for an ineffective internet censorship system. Internet Industry Association CEO Peter Coroneos says : "While we support many of the Government's efforts in the online security sphere, we aren't convinced that it [the filter] will have anything more than symbolic value” (Ross). Indeed, the attempt of censorship will only be symbolic to appease the pro-filter parties. Internet censorship cannot offer any absolute protections from illicit materials. At the same time, internet censorship will only sidetrack attention and resources to the incorrect place. The internet is composed of numerous elements: the World Wide Web's web pages are just a single dimension (“the shop window”) of the internet (Ross). Many information stores described as newsgroups, and Virtual Private Networks, chat rooms, internet messaging services and email operate like “back rooms and alleyways” (Ross).This is the normal domain for criminals and the truly distasteful material and this is the place that the government cannot reach with its proposed internet censorship program (Ross). The government focuses only on the “shop window” and this is the wrong place to begin with (Ross). And yet, it will spend millions on the wrong place, which makes this effort a waste of resources and attention. Furthermore, people are already complaining of Australia’s slow internet service and internet censorship can slow it down even further. IT specialists have cautioned that the planned blanket filtering will severely slow down Australia's already lethargic internet connection speeds (Courier Mail). The Rudd government promises a faster internet connection and it is what it should focus on. The Courier Mail stresses: “The Rudd Government should concentrate on delivering on its promise to improve broadband access and efficiency in this country, and not try to impose itself as some draconian nanny watching over all of our shoulders.” Internet censorship will only slow down the provision of internet services and decrease the competitiveness of the Australian internet infrastructure even more. Another argument is that the government should let the parents do the parenting. Internet censorship that aims on kids is the primary responsibility of the parents, not the government (Courier Mail). Indecent internet material can be filtered at the individual homes of the people. Parents can download free internet censorship software or buy one if they want. They can set the controls they want for their children and also have opt out for other filters that affects their own searching needs and purposes. They do not need the government to do this for them. Opponents of internet censorship also argue that self-censorship is already enough. There are many programs which are free or paid and readily available to anyone, who wants to censor out specific keywords and sites that contain any material that they do not want on their system. The Courier Mail asserts that there are numerous internet content filters that are available for free download from the Federal Government's own website. These are established at the user level, and can give different user profiles depending on the age and preferences of various household members. With these options, people can choose the level of censorship they want that fit specific individual and household needs and issues. There is no need for government intervention at all. Government intervention in the form of internet censorship will be useless and ineffective, when self-censorship controls can suffice. Internet censorship is, furthermore, against democracy, because it can be a form of authoritarian control that hampers freedom of expression. People are not informed of the names of the websites that will be blocked by the filters. The government may also be unknowingly blocking other websites that may not have illicit themes, but are still blocked because of its filters. This can directly violate civil freedoms of speech. Overblocking can be a serious concern for web publishers and consumers alike. The Minister for Broadband says that between one percent and six percent sites were actually being overblocked. A leakage already shows that sometimes, internet control can get too far. Farrell reports that the government's “top-secret list of banned sites was leaked onto the web in March, revealing the scope of the filtering could extend significantly beyond child porn and other bad things.” Around fifty percent of the sites on the list were not associated to child porn and integrated poker sites, Youtube links, ordinary gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, fringe religions, fetish sites, Christian sites and strangely, a tour operator and a Queensland dentist (Farrell). The extent of internet censorship remains baseless and in essence, out of control (Guynn). No wonder then that Google and Yahoo oppose this internet censorship. Google states that the extent of the filtering is too extensive, that it would slow down Internet access, could easily be evaded and would provide parents a “false sense of safety” (Guynn). Yahoo had comparable objections, and it thinks that it “could block content with a strong social, political and/or educational value” (Guynn). The government also claims that there will be selected filtering only but the worlds of Conroy focus on the word mandatory: “We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material” (Daily Telegraph). Evidently, the “mandatory” aspect of internet censorship makes it more of a no opt-out process. People are mandated to opt into the censorship and they have no choice. Where is the democracy in that? With these objections, it is clear that internet censorship can mar democracy, by controlling unrelated content and hampering freedom of speech. My policy proposal is that the government should focus on generating a self-censorship policy. This includes educating the public, especially schools and parents, in using free internet censorship software and in educating the people about the harms of accessing illicit content on the web. The government can have a school and community drive, where it partners with schools, teachers, and local government units in educating the public about self-censorship. This includes informing them about government websites and other commercial websites that provide free internet filters for pornography and other questionable internet material. This also provides education for teachers and parents, where they are instructed in monitoring internet access and ensuring that the children will not access illicit websites through seemingly innocuous words. The government has to share the responsibility of internet censorship with parents and schools. These are the institutions that children spend their time mostly. They are more influential in monitoring and affecting how children use the internet. These teachers and parents are the ones responsible engendering values, attitudes, and practices among the youth, where the latter will learn to choose not to access illicit content, because they believe it is wrong and immoral. They can empower the youth to makes these choices by guiding their moral development. The government cannot take a draconian move and insist on applying internet censorship that can be sweeping and costly, and in the end, remain ineffective and inefficient in blocking illicit content. In conclusion, I believe this proposal will not be effective in achieving its goals of controlling obscene and illegal content. The costs will also not justify the ends, because the government cannot entirely filter all obscene and illegal content. It will only affect one aspect of the internet and not even touch on the back ways and alley ways that criminals often use to spread indecent materials. Spammers and hackers can find a way around these filters and sometimes, even simple and innocent words can lead to illicit websites. Publishers can also evade blocking using simple techniques. The game of blocking and evading will be a cat and mouse game, and in the end, the public loses for paying something that does not work ultimately toward its goals. It is better to have a self-censorship policy on this matter, where people are educated about the benefits of self-censorship to their children and welfare, so that they can choose the filters that best fit their internet needs. This policy can focus on educating people at school, family, and community levels, since the latter are more influential in monitoring and affecting how children use the internet. It is more important to affect the attitudinal and behavioral practices of our youth and it cannot be done by internet censorship on a national level. Instead, I believe that it can be more effectively achieved through empowering education systems and practices, where children are guided to make the right choices for the sake of their moral development. Works Cited Cannici, Jr., William J. (2009). “The Global Online Freedom Act: Combating American Businesses That Facilitate Internet Censorship In China.” Journal of Internet Law 12.11 (2009): 3-17. Print. Courier Mail, The. “Censorship Must Be Left To Parents.” The Courier Mail (4 Jan. 2008). Print. Daily Telegraph, The. “Compulsory Censorship for Internet.” The Daily Telegraph (29 Oct. 2008). Print. Farrell, Nick. “Australia will Try To Censor the Internet.” The Inquirer 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 9 June 2011 . Fish, Eric. “Is Internet Censorship Compatible with Democracy? Legal Restrictions of Online Speech in South Korea.” Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights & the Law 10.2 ( 2009): 43-96. Print. Flood, Michael. “The Harms of Pornography Exposure among Children and Young People.” Child Abuse Review 18.6 (Nov/Dec. 2009): 384-400. Print. Guynn, Jessica. “Google, Yahoo object to proposed Internet censorship in Australia.” Los Angeles Times (23 Mar. 2010). Web. 9 June 2011 < http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/03/australia-internet-censorship-google-yahoo.html>. Levy, Steven. “Google and Its Ordeal in Ordeal in China.” Fortune 163.6 (2 May 2011): 94-100. Print. Newton, Mark. “Won't Somebody Think Of The Adults?” Policy 24.4 (2008/2009): 3-4. Print. Ross, Nick. “Censorship: Labor's Hidden Policy.” The Drum (21 July 2010). Web. 9 June 2011 . Read More