Increasing Censorship on the Internet - Assignment Example

Name ................................ Professor ....................... Sociology ....................... 30 October, 2013 Position Paper Should there be greater censorship of the Internet? An introduction Just a year ago, on 6th July, 2012, United Nations passed a resolution which deemed online freedom of expression as a human right. Among many other salient features the resolution included "promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the internet. No sooner had this resolution been passed than did Carld Bildt, Swedish Foreign Minister, call it "A Victory for the Internet" (Bildt, 2012) It is notable that freedom of expression is already granted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so backing this resolution came more as a form of formality than reality on ground. The resolution was backed even by China, a country that is infamous for online speech censorship. It has even favoured restriction of freedom during its participation at various deliberations and meets. The resolution was also backed, as could be expected by Libya, Tunisia and Egypt in context of widely-publicised Arab Spring. While there were not any apparent concerns raised against UN resolution and it was supported by one and all; what is intriguing is that the support came from even the countries that are known internet censors (York, 2012). The censorship is more pronounced in some Middle East and Asian countries that have either totalitarian or dictatorial regimes. In these countries even as small as an activity as blogging is considered to be risky as any information that the government finds is 'misleading' can get the blogger into serious trouble. As many as top 10 countries have been listed by Liverse.com (2013) that impose censorship one way or the other. Turkmenistan, for example, has kept internet available at such a high cost that the cost itself dissuades people from using it. Government is in full control of internet as it is the only service provider. This makes it very easy for the government to monitor even personal email accounts and block access to websites that it thinks infringe on government policies. Vietnam seeks information from giants as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to provide the government all blogger information. Anything critical to Vietnamese government, international human rights organisations and expatriate political parties is either immediately brought down or blocked. Censorship is stiff, and often ruthless. Same is true with Tunisia and Syria. There have been many instances in Syria of detentions of people who have expressed their opinions or made any reports online not conducive to government policies. China, as mentioned above, has time and again shown its arrogance regarding internet freedom. It follows a rigid censorship program in the world. Most commonly blocked content is that which the world is otherwise concerned about. Like Taiwan independence, Tibetan independence, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, propaganda outlets, police brutality, pornography, certain religious movements, blogging websites and of course freedom of speech. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Burma and North Korea are cousins in the making (Reporters Without Borders, 2012). Internet censorship has taken a very unimaginable turn particularly in Saudi Arabia where the government has blocked around 400,000 websites, on the pretext of containing offensive social, political or religious topics. The country monitors very closely content on gambling, drug use, and pornography, religious conversions of Muslims, and tools that circumvent filtering. Identification of the issue Censorship attempts at internet have been in practice ever since it came into existence. The censorship occurs because there is a clash of thought between what people think about it and what government’s take on the same is. The issue arises when people believe there should be enough freedom for information to flow freely, but the governments believe that belief is not worth sharing. If statistics are reviewed carefully, one can assume that internet is censored almost everywhere these days. However, one country's censorship may be stiffer than another country's. It all depends on which stakes has one country to lose than another if internet is given a free will to operate. Statement of the position The statement of the position can be viewed from a twin perspective and debated accordingly. One perspective is “should there be greater censorship of the internet?” Another perspective is “are the forms and expressions of identities freer in cyberspace than they are in everyday life?” Pros and cons will have to be verified to support or deride either. Background information Internet censorship is more or less the same as offline censorship, which has been in vogue for magazines, newspapers, music, television, radio, films and books. But in these cases borders are not as permeable as that of online media. This facet of online permeability sets the issue of internet censorship apart from the offline censorship as a result of which it attains greater significance and enormity. Internet is viral in nature and unless rules and regulations are in place, its effects can be contagious. Furthermore it is easy for one nation to censor internet information originating from another nation through content filtering and blocking even if this nation does not have any legal or physical control over the origin of information (Dutton et al, 2011). As internet evolved over time so did the views on its censorship; both have been going on in a parallel manner to each other. To put the matter in a chronological order, certain landmark statements have been made from time to time on internet censorship. John Gilmore, computer scientists, who was one of the founders of Electronic Frontier Foundation, quoted in Time Magazine in 1993 as this: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993). Vint Cerf, acclaimed as "Father of the Internet" saw internet as being privately owned now and lamented that government was actually losing control over it (Roberts, Zuckerman nd Palfrey, 2009). Some of it can be attributed to censorship circumvention tools being employed by information technology industry to thwart attempts at sites being blocked. On this Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society remarked in 2007 these tools were far ahead of methods employed by governments to block internet. But the statement also said that these tools were not widely used by internet users; only less that 2 percent used the same. Apparently opinions have been varied on the subject. A 2011 UNESCO report quoting Oxford Internet Institute's researchers argued that it is very much feasible to control information being projected on internet as a result of which it can't be said that greater freedom of speech can be guaranteed by technological advances. Several methods are being employed to censor internet and use blocking as a permanent remedial measure. This can be both static and dynamic and decision to resort to one or both depends on examination of the exchanged information on a real-time basis. Blocking can be executed at multiple levels or in closed environments like libraries based on desired keywords or key phrases. It can be done at decentralised sub-national level, national level, and institutional level or even in internet cafes or universities. Andrew (2009) has remarked that country-specific blocking is done across ISPs since no two places have similar ISPs. As has been seen several countries have resorted to blocking during sensitive times as elections. Certain tricky methods are used during such periods to give internet users a feeling that no censorship is taking place. These methods include returning a fake "Not Found" message to the user (Deibertt et al, 2008) Supporting evidence or facts Reports Without Borders, which advocates freedom of press and is a non-government Paris-based organisation published a list of 13 countries, ostensibly dubbing them as "Enemies of the Internet", which suppress exchange of information on internet. These countries include Bahrain, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The number of "internet enemies" fell to 10 when countries were analysed for their anti-internet efforts from 2006 to 2012 but rose again to 12. Different countries have varying mechanisms in place to bring internet under the purview of their general laws and regulations as they apply on media and any source that disseminates information. For example, in the United Sates First Amendment protects freedom of speech, as a result of which it extends to internet as well. On account of this not much filtering takes place in the U.S., even as the country strongly regulates use of internet on its soil. Even in absence of filtering, internet is bound by certain foolproof privately mediated mechanisms and legally bind set of complex rules (OpenNet Initiative, 2010). For more than fifteen years now the debate in the country has been going on what should be the limits of free speech and how it should protect minors from the "ill-effects" of this medium. No political consensus has been reached so far. Of importance are the debates that revolve around gambling and cyber security particularly in context of children and their frequent use of social networking sites. However, whatever filtering strategies have been used in the United States are drastically different, and more on a softer side, than ones applied by other countries; specifically those that are anti-internet. Bambauer (2009) has remarked that First Amendment provides internet users a lot of immunity from legal wrangles. US is using one of its many Acts about freedom of speech and others to rein in internet whenever necessary and wherever possible without trampling over its First Amendment. Some of these Acts include Communications Decency Act (CDA), Child Online Protection Act (COPA), Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Trading with the Enemy Act, and Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). There are also proposed federal legislations, which when passed would become laws. These are Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). In Australia it is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) that acts as a regulatory regime to enforce content restrictions and maintain a blacklist if necessary. But it can do so only on sites that are hosted within Australia. Main areas of concern, based on which such enforcement is made, are child pornography, illegal activities, and sexual violence. The federal laws used in the country to make such enforcements include Broadcasting Services Act 1992, Suicide Related Materials Offences Act 2006, and Copyright Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2007). The mandatory internet filter was withdrawn by the Communications Minister of the labour party. A discussion of both sides of the issue It is important to analyse the second part of the position statement before debating whether or not there should be greater censorship of the internet. Expressions of identities is a subjective term and depend of an individual's capability to express; everyday life or internet are only two different media where the expressions could be vented out. However, what internet has done has done is that it has taken these expressions beyond boundaries in a matter of moments and with the speed of thought. Internet has practically exploded individual expressions and has brought the world much closer, accessible, and interactive. It is important to protect freedom of speech both on individualistic and expressional level. In fact freedom of expression is one of the major reasons why millions of people are drawn towards internet throughout the world. It has given people sweeping options to express at will what they deem, could make a difference to the society or could generate an audience. Censoring internet will only crush this freedom. However there are certain pertinent issues with such unchecked freedom. Internet is also known to spread vice like wild fire and once such a thing goes viral the negative results are unabated. This mandates the importance of certain regulations since one person's freedom may be another person's nemesis. Currently there are a number of censorship bills under review, the implementation of which can make its use better and justified. Two important bills are SOPA and PROTECT-IP. The former stands for Stop Online Piracy Act and the latter for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. Both are specifically related to preventing piracy, which has become the current scourge in as far as online media is concerned. Conclusion Internet today has become an important medium of communication, exchange of ideas and speedier method of decision-making where a large consensus is required. Internet also has permeated in the social fabric such that it spreads as many wrongs as rights in the society. It has the capability to “vitiate minds” for example through content that change the moral values of a society. Suggested courses of action Both advantages and disadvantages of internet need to be measured and loose ends identified. Once that is done concise set of rules can be formulated and based on the same suitable laws enacted. Possible solutions The best possible solution to reach a consensus on whether internet should be censored or not can only be reached by deliberating upon the issue through private-public partnerships in which intellectuals, politicians, internet users, and academicians can debate the problem. Works Cited Australasian Legal Information Institute. Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Available http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch5.html. 2007. Online. Accessed October 30, 2013. Bildt, C. A Victory for the Internet. 2012. Print. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/carl-bildt-a-victory-for-the-internet.html. Accessed October 30, 2013. Bambauer, DE. Cybersieves. Duke Law Journal, vol. 59. 2012. Print. Available http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1143582&rec=1&srcabs=1026597#. Accessed October 30, 2013. Dutton, WH, Dopatka, Anna, Law, G, Nash, V. Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 103. 2012. Print. Elmer-Dewitt, P. First nation in Cyberspace. Time, 6 December, No 49, 1993. Print. Available http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/internet-article.html. Accessed October 30, 2013. ListVerse.com. Top 10 Countries That Censor The Internet. 2012. Print. Available http://listverse.com/2010/10/02/top-10-countries-that-censor-the-internet/. Accessed October 30, 2013. Reporters Without Borders. Cyber-censorship in 2012 overview. 2012. Online. Available http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/things-to-be-noted/. Accessed October 30, 2013. Roberts, H, Zuckerman, E, and Palfrey, J. Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools. Beckman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, 2007. Online. Available http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2007_Circumvention_Landscape.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013. York, JC. UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet and Human Rights a Step in the Right Direction. 2012. Online. Available https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/un-human-rights-council-resolution-internet-and-human-rights-step-right-direction. Accessed October 30, 2013. Read More