Issue of Internet Censorship - Term Paper Example

Internet censorship Introduction Internet censorship has become a topic of publicized debate. There is growing controversy on whether national governments should censor the internet in order to promote some particular standards of moral behaviour or whether to encourage free access of information (Day 3). Accordingly, the growth of the world wide network has made it possible for individuals to access volumes of information, news and entertainment across the world. The internet is considered a free media by many, but recent trend of internet censorship has attracted a lot of controversy. Some of the reasons cited for internet censorship include the need to preserve social morals and to the need to safeguard national security. On the other hand, opponents of internet censorship argue that such a move by the government limits the freedom of speech and the access to crucial information thus leading to reduction of the citizens’ welfare (Zuchora-Walske 2). One of the arguments that have been put across for the censorship of the internet is the need to protect the social norms. Proponents of internet censorship argue that unlimited internet access exposes children to pornography and hate speech thus negatively affecting their morals. In addition, the government should censor the access to homosexuality sites and religious sites that try to propagate negative religious doctrines that may affect social cohesion in the society (Russell and Cohn 67). Opponents of this argument assert that parents have the primary responsibility of safeguarding their children from pornographic sites by implementing internet filtering systems thus government should not censor the internet. They argue that censorship jeopardizes the right to information and right to conversation through the internet (Day 10). Another argument for internet censorship is the protection of national security. Proponents of this argument assert that it is the duty of the government to protect the national sovereignty and national interests of the country. In this regard, the government has the responsibility of censoring the internet in order to protect the military secrets from access by the enemies. For instance, China has continued to restrict the access to several web pages and filter digital information. Google has in the past protested against China’s decision thus leading to removal of the servers. However, Chinese people can still access Google servers using Hong Kong name, but cannot access certain search names especially that deal with online entertainment sites and government information (Russell and Cohn 126). According to the proponents of internet censorship, the suppression of some internet information usually upholds the social values in the society. In fact, some countries have implemented different censorship strategies in order to uphold the existing values and traditions of the citizen. This type of censorship upholds the moral of the society. For instance, Asian countries such as China have blocked internet sites that promote homosexuality and internet gambling. According to this argument, it is the responsibility of the government to protect the moral fabric of the society such as the family values, the gender roles and cohesion through preventing access to information that is contrary with the morals of the society. In addition, censorship will protect the population from sexism, segregation and racism that is usually exposed to children and citizens in the social websites. A further related argument of internet censorship is a need to ensure religious tolerance through preventing the furtherance of negative religious doctrines that may expose the country to religious based violence. In addition, censorship ensures that customs and taboos of the society are preserved. The dress code, sexual expression and religious beliefs are preserved through censuring the internet. However, critics argue that social values, taboos, dress code and religious beliefs change with changes in the society. Critics point out that new economic conditions, technology and changes in social environment are accompanied by changes in taboos and customs thus it is the duty of the society to embrace the changes in social values and dress code (Russell and Cohn 88). Proponents of censorship assert that it can be used to portray the negative impact of individuals thus it is critical to protect the privacy of individuals. For instance, censorship will prevent broadcasting of events that may trigger violence in the society. For instance, during terrorism attacks, censuring the internet will control the rumors and panic that may spread in the society. In addition, censuring information will also ensure that terrorists do not have access of information containing new atomic technologies and layout of significant facilities like airports that may be a target for terrorism related activities (Zuchora-Walske 29). Critics of internet censorship assert that many authoritarian governments censor the internet just to suppress freedom of speech and information. Such governments do not hold free and fair elections thus try to hold on to power through censoring the information that is available to the citizens. For instance, the ruling government will limit the access to the internet sites that minority groups use to contradict and pressure the government in ensuring democratic ideals and human rights. The opponents assert this is a dictatorial tactic used by authoritarian governments in order to suppress the agitation of freedom of press and free speech from the citizens. Additionally, censorship of the internet will continue to promote the ignorance of the citizens since special interest groups will take advantage of the situation and hold on to power (Zuchora-Walske 54). Critics of internet censorship also point out that it may foster the abuse of human rights by blocking legitimate criticism of unfair criminal trials by oppressive governments. In such case, censorship is not ideal for democratic nations that promote competitive politics and respect for fundamental human rights. Censuring the internet in order to protect the excesses of the government will create a negative image of the country among the international community (Russell and Cohn 221). Critics point out that idea of censuring the internet content has been misused in the past thus it curtails the free flow of ideas. The internet technology has been used to promote creativity, research and innovation in all parts of the country. In this regard, internet censorship will hinder research, new ideas and information thus ultimately impacting of the quality of welfare in the society. It is evident that governments, learning institutions and research institutions have to visit numerous websites in order to foster new knowledge generation (Russell and Cohn 228). Surprisingly, critics argue that internet access does not affect the morals or behaviour of the citizens. Censuring the internet to children may also make it difficult for the school authorities and parents to teach children on sexually transmitted diseases or even the need to refrain from drug abuse. The more the government censures the internet from teenagers, the more the teenagers will be curious in exploring the obscene images on the website (Zuchora-Walske 14). Conclusion Internet censorship has attracted much controversy. The proponents of censorship argue that it limits the spread of child pornography and safeguards the national security secrets. In addition, internet censorship is useful in safeguarding individual privacy and curtailing the spread of negative speech. On the other hand, critics of censorship argue that it is an infringement of freedom of speech and expression. In addition, censuring the internet will hinder innovation, research and access to new creative ideas that are essential in knowledge generation. Works cited: Day, Nancy. Censorship, or freedom of expression. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications. 2001. Russell, Jesse and Cohn, Ronald. Internet censorship. London: Wiley. 2012. Zuchora-Walske, Christine. Internet censorship: protecting citizens or trampling freedom. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books. 2008. Read More