Evaluation of Whether Increase in Internet Censorship Restricts Open Access for Its Users - Research Proposal Example

Evaluation of whether Increase in Internet censorship restricts open access for its users Internet censorship has become pervasive across the world in the recent years with many governments enforcing internet regulations in fear of its emancipatory potential; considering that more than 60 countries have imposed internet censorship, and thereby undermining internet freedom considerably. Freedom of speech/expression is a sensitive matter in the age of internet censorship and the ensuing debates but one that still needs to be addressed nonetheless. This paper investigates whether internet censorship restricts open access for its users with three hypotheses: the central hypothesis is that governments that regulate internet access consequently restrict open access to its users. Secondly, this paper posits that governments that allow internet freedom consequently promote open access to its users; the final hypothesis is that the level of internet freedom permitted by governments directly proportional to the extent of open access for its users. Data for the research will be gathered through surveys, library research, as well as interviews with citizens of various countries both with and without internet censorship, about their perceptions on the impact of internet regulation. These research’s findings will inform policy regarding internet freedom across the world thereby promoting open access for its users effectively. Introduction Over the years, internet censorship, the control or suppression of content that individuals can access, publish, or view over the internet by governments, private organizations, and several other regulators, has increasingly become a global phenomenon, with more than 60 countries from all over the world already enforcing this practice (Burnett, Sam and Feamster Nick 2013). Schmidt Eric and Cohen Jared (2013) concur that indeed many governments globally are monitoring and censuring internet access and in due course, many people will increasingly find the internet fissured, disjointed and controlled by the government and as a result it will lose their its newfound independence through such filtering (“Is the Internet at risk?” 2012). Internet censorship entails many forms of filtering of what is termed as “inappropriate content,” including radical political opinions (Gordon 1996), sexually explicit material, as well as content depicting acts of violence and terrorism acts, among other subjects. The Chinese government is among the leading states that have already imposed tough regulations to restrict the use of the internet by requiring all internet users to submit their names to service providers and the internet companies to delete harmful postings and to report them to authorities (Bradsher 2012). Many states nowadays have resorted to restrict internet use by unleashing violence against users, particularly bloggers, and by turning to censorship and arrest to muzzle calls for reforms according to a US advocacy group (Holland, Steve 2012). According to their report, whereas internet freedom in countries such as Tunisia, Libya, and Burma has promoted regime changes and dramatic political openness, countries such as Pakistan, Bahrain, and Ethiopia, which have thoroughly stifled internet freedom, have declined in rankings accordingly. Lum, Figliola, and Weed (2012) contend that Congress may have to consider alternative approaches to upholding internet freedom in its push for “Global Online Freedom” in places like the PRC, where free flow of information has been thoroughly curtailed as government officials often prefer secrecy over transparency (Stanton 2012). In response to internet censorship across the world, many technologically perceptive internet users have established brilliant strategies for circumventing internet censorship, bypassing all internet-filters to access the “inappropriate” censured material. For instance, International human rights organizations, which are common victims of internet censorship, usually exploit filtering circumvention technics to retrieve the hard-to reach information about abuse of human rights (Maitland, Herschel & Tchouakeu 2012). The controversial debate surrounding this issue is far from over, especially given that opinions are thoroughly divided on whether or not internet censuring is a necessary evil, to maintain a particular moral standard in society. Freedom of speech/expression, which is a fundamental civil right guaranteed by the constitutions of many countries around the world, is under threat (Tremblay 1999), given the pervasive censorship and the ensuing debates around the issue; nonetheless, the concerns of internet censorship need and must be confronted effectively. Key among these concerns is whether the increase in internet censorship restricts open access for its users; in that regard, this paper sets out to investigate whether the pervasive internet censorship does restrict open access for internet users around the world. Findings from this investigation will form a crucial policy formulation base that will lead to more informed policy decisions regarding internet use and internet freedom, thereby promoting open access of its users accordingly. Literature Review King, Pan and Roberts (2013) examine how censorship in China permits criticism of the government while silencing collective expression of the citizenry, what they consider to be the most outrageous effort to selectively restrict human expression. The trio unearths very interesting revelations that give deep insights on the Chinese government’s intent in imposing internet censorship for its users in the country; key among these findings is that the censorship is aimed at restricting collective action rather than content. They summarize their findings that contrary to previous research, the Chinese government is not likely to censure content even if it is perceived to be negative, harmful, or highly critical of the state and its leaders or its policies. Contrariwise, the Chinese censorship program is designed to silence posts that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, irrespective of content, thereby thoroughly forestalling activism. Nonetheless, internet regulation in all its forms and fashions is still censorship and it does to a considerable extent restrict open access for its users since it does undermine their internet freedom to express themselves and to challenge the regime alongside its policies. MacKinnon (2007) argues that the mere existence of the internet in the PRC is not a guarantee of democracy especially because the Chinese government has successfully managed to restrain activists from using the internet as an effective political tool for spurring political change through censorship and regulation programs. MacKinnon’s central argument is that with the quietly deepening civil discourse in the Chinese cyberspace, the country is more likely to have a generation of citizens that are more politically aware, and politically empowered to criticize and motivate policy reforms. This underscores the fundamental role of internet freedom in promoting openness in governance and leadership, since the platform enables people to criticize public policy and keeps the higher officials informed about the common people’s views, enabling the government to better serve its citizenry. Contrariwise, any attempt to stifle internet freedom by restraining online access and information dissemination through censorship inevitably undermines open access that is vital for open governance and leadership since it silences free speech. Gábris and Kovár (2013) propose that internet censorship occurs in different facets and has various goals, but most importantly, restriction of information dissemination over the internet is permissible if it meets the standards of equal rights, freedoms and underlying interests such as freedom of expression as well as the protection of rights of others. They advance an argument that restricting information dissemination over the internet transcends the notion of internet censorship since it mainly entails restraining the distribution of information that can be harmful to human life, health, and dignity while undermining public order and public dignity. According to them, abuse of the freedom of speech endangers public order public interests as well as national security thus the need for restraining internet freedom; nonetheless, they concur with others that proportionality is essential to avoid the disproportionate restriction of the fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to internet. Gorman (2005) compares the PRC and the liberal west’s interpretations of what constitutes acceptable content and concludes that the recent wave of attacks on China’s internet-use regulation policy notwithstanding, some sense of internet censorship is vital in any sensible view of the internet. This literature acknowledges that apart from China, most leading economies including New Zealand, Singapore, Britain, and even the USA (where criticisms against China’s censorship program are strongest), exercise a considerable control over the use of the internet, thereby restricting open access to content available to internet users. According to Doug (1998), the existence of material that can be potentially objectionable is no excuse for schools and libraries to deprive children access to the internet, particularly because censuring eventually eliminates most of the best features of the internet. Further, Doug contents that internet censuring undermines intellectual freedom since filtering eventually results to the blocking of entire servers, thereby restricting access to huge chunks of suitable information that ought to contribute to scholarly discourses. He advances his argument even further by pointing out that the site rating systems evaluate appropriateness of sights rather than the quality of content, and this limits users’ access to useful information. Open access to information over the internet is highly desirable especially in libraries and schools because it promotes scholarly awareness and spurs the growth and expansion of critical thought rather than the controlled environment of internet censorship, which limits users’ access to educative and informative information. Zheng (2013) explores the development of internet in the PRC alongside the major control programs that directly influence internet speech in the country and contends that internet censorship has resulted to more harm than good. Zheng highlights that the Chinese government restricts access to entire domains of certain websites, particularly international news sources that are hard to control, bloggers, and other websites that express opinions that are deemed highly critical of the country’s human rights and social justice records. According to Zheng, censorship of what is termed as “bad news” only aims to restrict individual’s open access to certain “sensitive information” or the subsequent dissemination of such information to the public, thereby undermining political openness and accountability of the state. Internet censuring thoroughly undermines open access to information since it leads to biased government filtering of information that can be accessed by users while imposing heavy penalties for individuals who circumvent the filters. Hogan (1999) argues that modern technology such as the internet and censorship cannot coexist peacefully, particularly because any attempt to restrict information dissemination over the internet must do more than just attempting to block the perceived “harmful” content. He further observes that the global intention to harness technology for its economic potential cannot be pursued alongside the desire to control internet access and what is perceived as “undesirable” content. He outlines Singapore’s supercilious goals for internet usage as well as its intention to get rid of content that is deemed potentially harmful to public order and national security, as well as public morality, religious, and racial harmony, through regulation of internet content. In this respect, Hogan contends that Singapore’s attempt to regulate internet content will inevitably undermine open access to information and the internet, which is a fundamental tool for promoting freedoms of expression and speech accordingly. Ross (2010) contends that internet censorship does not merely constrain free expression, but also disrupts the global open market for ideas and commerce, thereby undermining the notion of open access by curtailing internet freedom. She further argues that internet censorship in all its forms such as filtering, blocking, hacking, as well as through legal restrictions that impose self-censorship inevitably undermines open access by restraining individuals from connecting to the internet, to their favorite websites, and to each other too. She claims that the goal of promoting universal access to, as well as participation in free speech today’s communication systems is under threat in the age of internet censorship, where information dissemination over the internet is thoroughly restricted by authorities globally. In this respect, political systems are only as open as the extent of internet freedom allowed, which technically implies that the more internet freedom there is, the more open the governing structures and vice versa. Maitland, Herschel & Tchouakeu (2012) advance an argument that internet censorship or control undermines its use by different human rights watchdogs as a fundamental medium for advancing advocacy for the protection of human rights since it makes it hard to access vital information about abuses. They underscore the importance of openness by pointing out those internet restrictions often frustrate the work of human rights organizations, which often entails seeking and collecting the hard-to-reach information concerning abuses of human rights. In this respect, internet censorship thoroughly impedes open access since human rights organizations have to find extremely creative ways of circumventing the filters of information to safeguard not only their external information dissemination networks, but also their internal communication systems. In this regard, increased censuring inevitably challenges openness since a lot of vital information such as alleged abuses is made unavailable to relevant authorities such as human rights organizations and policy makers in countries globally; in that respect, internet censorship raises considerable suspicion regarding government intentions. Warf (2010) observes that although more than one-quarter of the world’s population use the internet today, the levels access vary considerably across the world, and that while on one hand it is highly regarded for its emancipatory potential, many countries limit access to it in fear of its potential harm. Further, Warf contends that the accessibility of the internet directly reflects the willingness of governments to permit the logging into, and subsequent participation of their citizenry in cyberspace discourses, thus nuancing openness of governance. On the other hand, internet censorship reflects the fear of the emancipatory potential of the internet that is often characteristic of repressive governments’ around the globe; in this respect, Warf highlights the fact that increased internet censorship inevitably restricts open access for its users while thwarting free speech as well. Hypotheses The central hypothesis in this investigation is that governments that regulate internet access through censorship programs or internet regulation thoroughly curtail free expression/speech over the medium, which undermines internet freedom besides restricting open access for its users. The second hypothesis is that governments that do not regulate internet access through censorship and other regulatory mechanisms have permitted free expression and speech over the medium, thereby protecting internet freedom while promoting open access for its users accordingly. The third and final hypothesis is that the level of internet freedom permitted by governments is directly proportional to the extent of open access for its users and the rate of regime changes in the given countries respectively. Research Methodology This investigation will take the form of qualitative research, to establish whether internet censorship restricts open access for its users by focusing on a number of pertinent questions that will shade light on the issue at hand. Firstly, do governments that regulate internet access through censorship programs or internet regulation curtail internet freedom and open access for its users? Secondly, do governments that do not regulate internet access through censorship programs or internet regulation promote internet freedom and open access for its users? Finally, is that the level of internet freedom permitted by governments directly proportional to the extent of open access for its users and the rate of regime changes in the given countries? Data Collection Data for the research will be gathered through surveys, library research, as well as interviews with citizens of various countries both with and without internet censorship, about their perceptions on the impact of internet regulation. References “Is the internet at risk? Increasing ISPs power could pose threats to open competition, free speech internet”. (2012). The Economic Times (Online). Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-27/news/31244940_1_net-neutrality-isps-tim-berners-lee Bradsher, K., (2012). China Toughens Its Restrictions on Use of the Internet. Nytimes.com. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/asia/china-toughens-restrictions-on-internet-use.html?ref=internetcensorship&_r=0 Burnett, S., and Feamster, N., (2013). Making Sense of Internet Censorship: A New Frontier for Internet Measurement. Computer Communication Review volume 43(3), 84-89. Gábris, T., & Kovár, L. (2013). Restraining the information dissemination on the internet. Communication Today, (2), 6-21. Gordon, J. (1996). Cyber-censorship grows in East Asia; Internet: Governments are closing off the one medium that allows open debate and dissent. Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-27/local/me-47909_1_east-asia Gorman, G. E. (2005). China-bashing in the internet censorship wars. Online Information Review, 29(5), 453-456. Hogan, S. B. (1999). To net or not to net: Singapores regulation of the internet. Federal Communications Law Journal, 51(2), 429-447. Holland, S., (2012). More countries restrict Internet to stifle critics: Report. Nbcnews.com. [Online]. 21st January, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/more-countries-restrict-internet-stifle-critics-report-1B6042342 Johnson, D. (1998). Are you sure you want an internet filter? virtual censorship is still censorship. TechTrends, 43(3), 6.  King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in china allows government criticism but silences collective expression. The American Political Science Review, 107(2), 326-343.  Lum, T., Figliola P. M., and Weed, M.C., (2012). China, Internet Freedom, and U.S. Policy. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42601.pdf MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? blogs, censorship and civic discourse in china. Public Choice, 134(1-2), 31-46. Maitland, C. F., Herschel, T., & Tchouakeu, L. N. (2012). Internet censorship circumvention technology use in human rights organizations: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 27(4), 285-300.  Ross, A. (2010). Internet freedom: Historic roots and the road forward. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 30(2), 3-15.  Schmidt, E., and Cohen, J. (2013). Web censorship: The net is closing in. Theguardian.com.. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/23/web-censorship-net-closing-in Stanton, L. (2012). Bipartisan report sees internet usage in China met with blocking, censorship. Cybersecurity Policy Report 1.  Tremblay, T. (1999). Internet censorship as "cybriety": Freud, McLuhan, and media pleasures. Mosaic : A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, 32(1), 167-182.  Warf, B. (2011). Geographies of global internet censorship. GeoJournal, 76(1), 1-23. Zheng, H. (2013). Regulating the internet: Chinas law and practice*. Beijing Law Review, 4(1), 37-41.  Read More