Internet Censorship - Research Paper Example

Internet Censorship Introduction The internet is currently one of the most pervasive and widely used technologies in the world. It is at the very heart of information technology and it is now considered a crucial link to various businesses, social networks, and academic institutions. The extent of its pervasiveness and coverage is however a major issue in its applications considering that it is a major threat to privacy, and, based on the claims of some government agencies, a threat to national security as well. This paper shall consider internet censorship as it is applied by the international community and by specific jurisdictions. This paper is being undertaken in order to establish a clear and a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and all its related applications. Discussion During the mid-1990s, different countries have been trying to address issues on materials being made available in the internet which are actually considered illegal under their standard legal provisions. These materials have changed over the years, but substantially, these materials include pornography, incitement to racial hatred, and political speeches (EFA). Some governments have since tried to implement bans on the access and the spread of materials unsuitable for minors; others have also tried to impose sanctions against materials which incite racial hatred. However, these government impositions have not successfully controlled the access that minors and other individuals have been able to gain from websites. Nevertheless, means to control and ban these materials have been attempted and in some jurisdictions are currently in place. One of the means being adopted to implement internet censorship is that government policies are being implemented to encourage internet users to regulate their use and to implement filters in their use of the internet (EFA) In the UK, Canada, and other European nations, these filters are being applied. In these territories, the censorship relates to internet content involving child pornography and incitement to racial hatred (EFA). Criminal law penalties apply to violations of these laws, more particularly for offenders who make content which ‘unsuitable for minors’ available online and for those who are involved in child pornography. The censorship also comes in the form of government-mandated blocking of access to materials which are not appropriate for adults. This approach is being carried out in Australia, China, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam (EFA). These countries require internet service providers to prevent material from reaching the internet users. Other countries only allow limited access to the net through government access areas (Bidgoli, p. 264). Internet censorship also comes in the form of government prohibition in public access to the internet. Different countries have been known to limit public access to the net, or they sometimes call for users to be licensed by the government before they can access the internet. The important consideration in the application of internet censorship is the fact that what is prohibited in one country may not be prohibited in other countries. Case in point is the rating of movies which may be different in different countries (EFA). In effect, what may be deemed R-18 in France, may only be classified as 12 in the US, or vice versa. In Australia, internet censorship consists of laws passed by the Commonwealth and the state governments. In 1999, the Broadcast Services Amendment (Online Services) Act of 1999 was passed (Moses). This law basically implements access prevention at server levels. The Commonwealth government of Australia is a complaints-based system which can be implemented to content hosts, but not to content creators (EFA). The hosts are mandated to remove Australian hosted material from the server which is labeled as objectionable upon receipt of orders from a government regulator. The Australian Broadcasting Authority informs the filtering software providers of the materials being sponsored beyond Australia to then be included in the blacklists (Moses). China has gained much attention due to its application of internet censorship policies. As early as 1996, China prevented access to about 100 websites using a filtering system which prevents the entry of offensive information (James). These banned websites have mostly been western news outlets, Taiwanese sites, sites of China dissidents, as well as pornographic sites. Since 1996, China has continued to implement these bans and have implemented laws prohibiting the publication of commentaries about and against the government (James). Reports of foreign media being banned in China have also been rife. At some point, China has also apparently ordered the screening of private email—reviewing them for politically inciting comments, and holding them accountable for making public comments on various websites (James). Portal sites are also mandated to include security protocols which screen and copy emails sent and received by users. Emails with sensitive and inciting materials are submitted to government authorities (Jacob). The providers are also tasked to erase all illegal postings and prohibited contents on their internet sites, in their chatrooms, and bulletin boards. A longer list of banned and prohibited content have been revealed by the government; these materials include those which damage China’s reputation, those which seek to overthrow communism, those which seek to implement ethnic separatism, and sites which are considered evil cults (EFA). Evil cults are included now due to the rise of the Falun Gong spiritual group. China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) uses a filtering software which seeks sensitive worlds in the information flowing through networks (Mack). When internet users log in and uses banned search words, the software would detect such words and information and transmits commands which break the internet connection – thereby preventing the user from accessing the information he wants. As more Chinese and more Chinese citizens are gaining access to the internet, the government is also coming up with ways to control and regulate their use and their access to information (Mack). The government even ordered at one point for all computer companies selling computers to install Green Dam censoring software to computers. However, due to government protests, this plan was abandoned (Mack). MIIT started calling for websites to indicate their real identities. This was set forth to implement a crackdown of porn sites, however, this was deemed to be just another technique for the government to shut down and control innocent websites. China’s censorship techniques have prompted other companies and corporations to implement some of these bans in the internet. For example, Microsoft censors Chinese language searches in its search engine; Apple has blocked the downloading of Dalai Lama applications in its iPhone and iTouch product (Mack). Google and Yahoo have also filtered searches. These have all been implemented by these companies in order for them to be able to do business with China. Materials and websites censored in China include, Facebook, Twitter, Flick, and YouTube, as well as information on Falun Gong, Taiwan, Torture, and Tiananmen, among others (Mack). Some users are able to bypass the censors by using proxy servers however these servers are difficult to access in China. As a result of an alleged attack on its site – an attack which apparently originated from China, Google stopped censoring its search engine last March. The attack was said to be an attempt to steal code and hack into Gmail accounts of some human rights activists in China. The users who tried to access Google China were redirected to Google Hongkong (Helft and Barboza). The Chinese government told Google that this was not acceptable and could cause the revocation of Google’s internet provider license in China. To this date, Google has been firm on its stand on not censoring its applications in China (Helft and Barboza). In Denmark, a man was convicted for posting racist remarks about a Danish news organization (Varlejs). Racist slurs are prohibited in Denmark; however, since his comments were not banned in the US, similar comments he made in an American internet provider went unpunished (Snedker). During the 1990s, Germany also imposed sanctions similar to China (Hudson). In one case, an internet provider was punished for distributing pornography. Recently however, their laws have been adjusted and service providers are not anymore considered responsible for postings in the internet which they have no control over (Varlejs). For the United States, it has had more difficulties in implementing internet censorship laws. Efforts to impose these laws have repeatedly been blocked by the US Supreme Court for being unconstitutional and for violating the freedom of speech (Varlejs). This has not however stopped academic institutions, as well as business organizations and libraries from censoring the content of the materials being accessed in their jurisdictions. This practice has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to protest over this practice, claiming that statements posted by students on the internet is part of the freedom of speech which needs to be protected (ACLU of Eastern Missouri). This has not stopped these institutions however from disciplining students or dismissing employees for their internet activities. For private institutions, employees have no recourse because their employers have the prerogative of dismissing them on their whims (Varlejs). These organizations have, after all, the right to control how their computers would be used and how their work hours would be allocated. The world press has been very critical of internet censorship, most especially because it is their material which is often the subject of censors. They point out the fact that repressive regimes are fully benefitting from internet censors because they control and repress reform and debates (Ward). Even as the internet is changing how the media is releasing its materials, which now makes blogs, chat forums, and social networks alternative forums, other repressive individuals are also taking advantage of these forums. As claimed by the world press, many dictators are monitoring the activities of their citizens through the internet and imposing censors on debates and other expressions of free speech (Ward). In some countries, the net used to be a free and open forum – an uncensored one at that. In fact, many people used the net to gain information which they would not even hear from official government reports. However, some governments have already realized the dangers which the net could pose on their activities and on their repressive goals. And they have used the net to suppress what they view as inciting language. These governments have censored these blogs and reports, especially from individuals whom they label as dissidents. In some countries, these individuals have actually been jailed for material they have posted on the internet (Ward). In Iran, Mojtaba Saminejad was jailed for posting a blog which was considered offensive to Islam. In China Li Yuanlong was jailed for 2 years for posting content which was viewed by the Chinese government as subversive (Diaga). In the years since internet censorship was implemented in China, its coverage has now spread to its entire population – scrutinizing signs of social unrest in the country. Ironically however, this unrest has grown because the internet itself has made it easier for the people to communicate with each other (Ward). Other net users have also been jailed in other countries, including Egypt, Libya, Maldives, Syria, Tunisia, and Vietnam. Other countries have also followed in China’s footsteps in implementing internet censorship. Zimbabwe has actually bought technology from China in order to implement internet censorship on its citizenry (Ward). Most of the censors have covered sites which are rampantly involved in child pornography, others have covered sites which have been known to be critical of the government and of religions (Ward). Turkmenistan has even imposed bans on home internet connections and has forced their people to use net cafes where their use can easily be controlled. In Burma, Hotmail and Yahoo mail are banned and every 5 minutes, screen grabs of what people are viewing are taken (Ward). Conclusion The above discussion exemplifies the extent of internet censorship around the world. These censors were originally set forth because of the pervasive use of the internet for child pornography. However, the censorship has now evolved into other materials and content; it now covers materials which are racist, anti-government, or anti-religion. This censorship has now been imposed in various territories in order to manage subversive content from inciting citizens to activities of civil unrest. For the most part, such censors seek to control people’s activities in the internet, stirring these away from the offensive and subversive activities. Some territories are however not supporting internet censorship because it is part of the protected laws of their lands – mostly on the freedom of speech and expression. To this day, internet censorship remains to be a well-debated practice. On one side, it is supported for the benefits and protection it can give to the citizens and to peaceful governments and on the other, it is vilified for its suppressive and repressive implications. Regardless of its applications, the internet will continue to develop and evolve into an even more pervasive and widely used technology. Works Cited ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “ACLU of Missouri sues school for suspending student who created personal website”. ACLU, 1998. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.peacefire.org/ archives/aclu-pr.7-28-98.tx Bidgoli, H. “The Internet encyclopedia, Volume 2”. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2004. Electronic Frontiers Australia. “Internet Censorship: Law & policy around the world”. EFA, 2002. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html Diaga, M. “Chinese Internet Journalist Jailed for 2 Years”. Softpedia, 2006. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Internet-Journalist-Jailed-for-2-Years-29805.shtml Helft, M. & Barboza, D. “Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship”. New York Times, 2010. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html Hudson, D. “Germany’s Internet angst”. Wired News, 1998. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/12884.html Jacob, J. “How Internet censorship works in China”. International Business Times, 2011. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/113590/20110217/china-internet-censorship-great-firewall-us-hillary-clinton-communist.htm James, R. “Chinese Internet Censorship”. Time, 2009. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1885961,00.html Mack, L. “How China Uses Its Great Firewall for Internet Censorship”. Chinese Culture, 2011. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://chineseculture.about.com/od/mediainchina/a/China-Internet-Censorship.htm Moses, A. “Internet censorship plan gets the green light”. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2009. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html Snedker, S. “Online hate has its limits”. Wired News, 1998. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://www.wired.co/news/news/politics/story/12996.html Varlejs, J. “Who Censors the Internet and Why”. Rutgers School of Communication, 1998. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://archive.ifla.org/faife/papers/riga/varlejs.htm Ward, M. “Net censorship spreads worldwide”. BBC News, 2006. Accessed 18 May 2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4973114.stm Read More