The Regulation of the Internet - Essay Example

The Regulation of the Internet Introduction The internet has become one of the most widespread technological advancements which have gained popularity in recent years. Since its inception, its use has expanded and its coverage has grown extensively. Most everything can now be found and done online. Business transactions can be carried out online, so can social interactions, buying, selling, and even dating. Various individuals use it for both their professional and personal needs; it serves purposes which mostly relate to convenience and easy accessibility. In recent years however, due to its widespread use, issues on censorship have been raised. Due to the delicacy of internet materials which have become widespread in their use, the idea of internet censorship has been suggested. However, issues on the application of democratic ideals seem to clash with the idea of internet censorship. This paper shall examine the arguments which have been put forward for the regulation of the Internet. It shall answer whether or not internet censorship is compatible with democratic values and ideals. This paper is being carried out in order to establish how concerned parties can manage internet information and use while still maintaining democratic ideals and values. Body Internet censorship is defined by Colthorp as “internet material that is examined and then removed or suppressed when it is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable”. This includes a very wide range of materials which can be considered censorable; defining what is morally or politically objectionable can spawn various materials in the legal, ethical, religious, liberal or the conservative sense. Nevertheless, materials often defined to be subjects of censorship include pornographic, politically seditious, and even criminally offensive materials. The purposes of censorship in different countries often have various motivations. Three main regions in the world engage in internet censorship, including East Asia, Central Asia, and Middle East/North Africa (Misa, 60). Other countries like Germany, France, and even the US also implement some form of censorship against certain websites and under specific settings. The US for example, filters internet activities in computers in libraries as well as K-12 schools (Reichman and American Library Association, 39). In France and Germany, materials about Nazism and Holocaust denial are also blocked (Deibert, 190). Child pornography and other pornographic sites are also banned by various countries in the world, including China, Singapore, and most countries in the Middle East (Deibert, Palfrey, and OpenNet Initiative, 5). Some of these countries are actually democratic countries and have long respected the freedom of speech and of expression, and yet are involved in some form of internet censorship. The practice of internet censorship has been supported, to some extent, by governments because various reasons. The significant growth of the Internet has led to a new realm of human communication whose ease is facilitated by cyberspace, its low cost in participation, as well as its potentially vast audience (Malakoff, 1). In many ways, it actually represents a purely democratic forum where any literate person can express his thoughts, feelings, and opinions. On the other hand, electronic communication and the internet also have negative consequences owing to the fact that most people can now access any morally and politically pervasive materials on the internet (Malakoff, 2). This is the primary reason driving some governments to implement regulatory practices for internet use. Countries which have historically suppressed the transmission of data in an attempt to control and suppress any civilian dissent have found the internet to be a particular problem. These countries have an innate fear that materials that their people would read and obtain from the internet would encourage them to revolt or protest against the government (Malakoff, 2). In countries like China, fears of Westernization and of ideas of Western-liberalized ideas would be gained by their people from the internet, which may prompt their citizens to protest, to revolt, and to express negative things about the government. There is basically also a fear of the negative impact of the internet, mostly from what some Asian countries label as Americanized values which are against traditional Asian beliefs (Rahman, 20). In these countries, internet regulation and censorship is based on their need to preserve their Asian culture and ideals which they believe is being threatened by persistent negative American influence (Rahil and Nakamura, 5). Studies on the use of the internet in Southeast Asian countries have proven to be particularly challenging because while these countries want to take advantage of all the potentials and benefits of the internet, they are also concerned about other materials becoming widely available to their conservative masses, such as pornography, hate speeches, snuff videos, and similar materials they may find either morally or politically reprehensible (Teo Pho Keng and Oon Yeoh, 21). In Singapore, their application of internet censorship has been very specific because it portrays the basic tension when the government supports the internet and its commercial, social, and educational potential and that of their need to protect their citizenry from morally offensive materials (Malakoff, 2). Singapore has accepted various elements of the current globalized and electronic world with almost every government agency having its own website, with most of their computers linked and networked with each other, as well as their populace being able to use it to transact their businesses and pay their taxes (Erickson, 42). The websites and internet options for the general population were fashioned in order to encourage a healthy and engaging internet environment (Malakoff, 2). Business enterprises in Singapore have also embraced the online technology and options in managing their transactions. In other words, the internet has basically become a fully accepted and fully integrated tool in the lives of Singaporeans. In fact, the City of Singapore itself represents one of the most computer-literate cities in the world (Rahil and Nakamura, 6). Despite its seemingly high level of acceptance of the internet and its usage, the Singapore also recognizes the fact that there are possibly destructive materials being circulated in the internet. In order to manage the impact of these destructive materials and to preserve their basic social values, the Singapore Broadcast Authority (SBA) established regulatory measures in internet use (Singapore Broadcast Authority). Since the regulations have been established, the government has been keen on assuring the public and all users that their means of regulating the internet would not significantly limit the potential and development of internet use (Rahil and Nakamura, 6). The SBA’s efforts towards internet censorship have therefore sought to seek the development of the internet and its general use, while also controlling the access to material which is not in keeping with their traditional values (Malakoff, 3). Moreover, the SBA has also come to realize the technical challenge of regulating the internet and has resolved to work with the community in order to educate the public and promote the use of favourable websites (Singapore Broadcast Authority). These considerations have prompted Singapore to reconsider other possible ways of managing internet use while still utilizing to the fullest all its utilities. Undeniably however, the impact of some morally and political reprehensible materials in the internet has served as a viable reason for the regulation of the internet, especially in a society which has built its foundations on conservative values and politics. Without their citizens fully understanding the materials they may be exposed to, their citizens may indeed be morally and politically corrupted, and engage in behaviour which would basically be harmful to the stable foundations of the government and the country they belong to. Singapore is by no means the first country to have considered the regulation of the internet. In fact, one of the first countries which considered the regulation of the internet is none other than the United States. In 1996, the US introduced the Communications Decency Act in response to the growing use and trend in the distribution of child pornography (Stevenson, 534). The act was meant to criminalize the use and distribution of child pornography because of its offensive and indecent nature. This law however was immediately invalidated by the Supreme Court, citing the freedom of speech. A second attempt towards the censorship of child pornography was established under the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (Stevenson, 535). Although this law was not invalidated, the burden of proving that the restriction was based on the protection of the child was placed in the government. This made the judicial application of this law particularly challenging because the freedom of the speech can always be used to counter any child pornography crimes brought under this law. Australia, another democratic country, has also established regulatory provisions for their internet use (Stevenson, 535). In 1999, they passed the Broadcasting Services Amendment Act where they imposed policies on internet use based on classifications made by the Classification Review Board. Materials which were therefore classified as X18 and RC were only made available to adults (Stevenson, 535). Australia’s regulatory processes were also based on the pervasive availability of morally offensive materials in the internet and their concerns on the impact of said materials on the younger users. Their regulation was based on complaints made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority which was the agency tasked with identifying websites with prohibited materials (Stevenson, 535). For materials found offensive under Australian servers, take-down notices were sent to the providers and hosts; for content with foreign hosts, ACMA notifications were sent to blocking softwares to have the content blocked (Stevenson, 535). These actions by the government are meant to manage offensive content which they fear are threats to the morality and the sensibilities of their youth population. Under these premises, regulation is based on moral considerations. Other regulatory means have also been applied by other countries, mostly with the application of internet filtering systems. Saudi Arabia uses this system and it is one of the countries which only allowed internet use when these filtering processes were actually in place. The concerns of Saudi Arabia in terms of internet materials are largely based on certain political and religious considerations (Open Net Initiative). As in Australia and the US, they were also concerned about the moral implications of some of the materials made available by the internet. Mostly, this involved any form of pornography, the use of drugs, gambling, and religious conversion (Open Net Initiative). Based on religious considerations, they also blocked sites which discussed or supported homosexuality and alcohol use. In a largely Muslim region, these decisions and choices in internet regulation are justified. Although, the more liberal countries may not see homosexuality and alcohol or drug use to be offensive activities and materials, such views cannot hold water in Islamic regions. The above countries have established relatively effective means for internet regulation, however no country has mastered this practice more than China through what is termed as the Great Firewall of China (Stevenson, 536). This term is however inaccurate because China does not use a single filtering system only; instead internet censorship in China is based on a complex system of regulatory laws, as well as technologies which have so far effectively regulated their internet use (Stevenson, 537). China’s internet censorship is firstly supported by legal restrictions, mostly laws which punish servers and providers which host or allow materials which are politically or morally prohibited by the country. Materials prohibited are any materials which are politically insidious as well as violent (Tee, 3). Secondly, technical barriers are also used by China in order to control the materials steaming in through the internet. It uses mostly a filtering method to ensure that such regulatory systems are in place. Finally, foreign assistance is also one of the means being used by China in order to ensure the regulation of its internet (Stevenson, 537). Foreign assistance is based on agreements with foreign companies and engineers who agree to block the entry of prohibited materials into the country. These companies include Yahoo, MSN, and even Google who value their business and access into China, more than democratic or freedom of speech considerations (Stevenson, 431). Based on an American or Western viewpoint, internet censorship in countries like Singapore and China may be difficult to understand and even justify. However, countries like Singapore and China strongly believe and support the reasons behind their regulatory policies. Ang and Nadarajan, (2) discuss that the negative impact of some internet materials have already been proven; therefore, it would not be out of place for them to take on a cautious attitude in terms of implementing censorship policies in order to manage such negative effects. Singapore and China also admit that there have been incidents in their political history where media reports – both true and false – have incited riots and violence in the streets against the government (Ang and Nadarajan, 2). Many of these violent outbreaks often resulted to political unrest, violence, and deaths among innocent civilians. In most of these instances, there was often inaccurate data relayed to the press, but these reports could no longer be withdrawn once they were posted online. These dangers of uncensored and unregulated internet use provide a strong basis for authorities to regulate the internet (Ang and Nadarajan, 2). Censorship also has the power to persist because of the majority support from majority of the citizens in countries like Singapore and China. Most adults also agreed that it was appropriate to censor materials for their younger users especially on topics related to pornography and even materials causing racial conflicts and tension (Ang and Nadarajan, 2). Censorship in these countries is therefore based on socio-political reasons, which often lean towards caution and prevention, not so much on liberalism. Such systems have been accepted by the people and have not provided stability in their daily functions and political participation. There are also various principles involved in seeking to understand the regulation of the internet in countries like Singapore. Initially, materials being filtered into homes are often more heavily controlled as compared to materials being directed in the corporate offices and businesses (Ang and Nadarajan, 3). Singapore authorities accept the fact that materials being directed towards businesses must be allowed free reign because they would mostly be used for information and business purposes. Data being filtered to homes on the other hand are more sensitive information which may be accessed by children (Ang and Nadarajan, 3). Materials for the younger population are heavily regulated because of the need to protect the weaker members of society from the harm which said materials can pose. Materials for the general public are also heavily controlled as compared to those which are meant for private use. This is also based on the paternalistic principle or the need to protect the weaker members of society from the harm which the materials can bring (Finley, 135). Internet censoring and democracy and its related rights and liberties are in the most basic sense, contradictory to each other. Most especially as far as political expression and rights are concerned, internet censorship seems to be a gross violation of these considerations. Although various countries in Asia have been keen on utilizing the economic potentials of the internet, their governments have been cautious about the political consequences of internet materials (Ho, et.al.). The laws they have passed against politically insidious materials have been aimed towards a variety of purposes, including the maintenance of their peace and order, their control over their people, as well as the police power of their state (Beattie, 11) Authoritarian governments like China and Vietnam have implemented various internet prohibitions through firewalls as well as carrying out arrests of internet political activists (Neumann, 2001). Vietnam, same as China, is actually one of the most repressive governments with websites which are political or moral threats being blocked by the government. They also prohibit the use of the internet to further political opposition, especially with actions which are inherently against political sovereignty (Peace, 137). Those who would violate these mandates are often summarily tried and convicted by their courts. Even internet café owners are actually being threatened with liability for allowing customer’s insidious messages to be sent through their computers (Gomez, 138). It is therefore considered the responsibility of café owners to set up surveillance systems on their computers in order to establish which among their customers may be using their computers for political or any other prohibited purposes (Thierer and Crews, 5). Various individuals known as cyber-dissidents have already been arrested and placed under house arrests for criticizing governments (Gomez, 138). Similar arrests have also been carried out in China, mostly for what the Chinese government considers as messages which incite subversion. In Burma, the military junta has also censored all online social activities and has now only now considered allowing internet access to some pre-approved websites (Lintner). However, high fees are often required to gain internet license. There are various discourses which can be made on internet regulation. First is the state-based traditionalist discourse. This discourse basically supports the notion that the state is the main controller of the internet (Fried, 626). The state has the democratic authority and the proper processes with which to impose internet regulations. Other more liberal thinkers are however against these premises and argue that any government implementing national policies to control the internet would not have the same authority in the global setting (Mayer-Schönberger, 8). They further argue that the basis of democratic legitimization is about participating in most political processes; moreover, if all national policies were to be applied to cyberspace, internet users would have to follow hundreds of policies from different states. This is very much impracticable because it is not possible to obey certain contradictory policies simultaneously (Mayer-Schönberger, 8). Traditional-thinkers emphasize that the possible regulatory spill-over effects are not exclusive to internet regulations (Mayer-Schönberger, 8). Furthermore, other regulations and conflict of laws principles have also been established in order to resolve regulatory spill-over issues. Traditionalists also point out that democratic countries also offer the most appropriate system of governance for internet regulations (Mayer-Schönberger, 8). . For as long as there are no alternatives which can be used to regulate the internet, the challenges it is being faced with must not be capitalized on (Ratner, 740). Supporters of internet regulation also highlight the fact that if there is any other entity which would to a significant extent fairly manage internet use, then the government is that entity. Considering the dangers of the internet, and its materials, its use and applications cannot be allowed free reign without some form of regulatory process. The cyber-separatist discourse is also one of the discourses being considered for internet regulation. Cyber-separatists view the internet as a social arena which is divorced from the real world (Goldsmith, 476). They believe that the current national policies must not be applied to cyberspace. They also believe that it is a world which must not be bounded by rules and regulations. Internet regulation must therefore not be allowed at all. From the outset, there are however already issues with this argument. Even is cyberspace is considered a world which is distinct from the real world, it is still a social space where individuals interact with each other (Mayer-Schönberger, 15). Where social interactions are present, conflicts within these interactions would always surely occur and have to be resolved. There is therefore a need to implement a system with which to manage such interactions and the subsequent conflicts which may arise. Even on an informal scale, internet users themselves have established what they call as ‘netiquette’ or internet etiquette for all users to respect and follow (Mayer-Schönberger, 15). Other internet users also do not favour the overall lack of regulation of the internet. Instead, they suggest the self-regulation of the internet (Bomse, 1717). They also argue that society is capable of following its own rules and that self-rule is inherently plausible. Moreover, implementing rules to internet users must be done by those who are actually affected by it, not by members of one society against another (Mayer-Schönberger, 15). Implementing laws of one country on another is against the principles of self-government. Therefore, self-regulation is the better alternative to strict internet regulation. Self-regulation has strong ideological foundations and they are supported by democratic ideals (Mayer-Schönberger, 8). However, it too has its limits. Those who oppose it argue that granting that the internet does exist in a separate world from the physical space we are living in, people who are using it are living in a real and physical space where they use technology to interact with each other (Mayer-Schönberger, 15). People’s behaviour must therefore still be made liable to rules which exist in the physical world. The cyber-internationalist discourse is also another discourse into internet regulation. Cyber-internationalists believe that the internet represents a global community. If the internet is linking all the citizens of the world, there must therefore be a bigger belief in the idea that specific parts of governance can also be delimited (Mayer-Schönberger, 16). The right level of management in cyberspace is on the international level through the applications of international law (Geist, 521). The internationalist discourse already acknowledges the fact that there is a need to regulate the internet because of the dangers it presents to its users, especially those which may not all be too discerning of its hidden risks. Others oppose the internationalist approach as they point out that there is no legitimate basis for it and there are limited applications of international law in some areas (Bradley and Goldsmith, 815). Due to the varying perceptions and culture of states, it would be illogical to assume a consensus on internet regulation can be established. Cyber-internationalists however are quick to point out that international consensus will eventually and naturally manifest because the internet has now become too precious a commodity for most people. Most users would therefore likely concede the necessary regulation of its use (Mayer-Schönberger, 16). Internet censorship has originally been limited to political actors who have mostly been bent on controlling their people and their country (Bambauer, 519). Now however, with its various negative effects and materials as perceived by users, its regulation has become more widespread, even to democratic territories. Judging whether or not internet censorship is legitimate is based on a variety of factors. A framework of assessment has been suggested by Bambauer (519) who evaluated the legitimacy of filtering systems based on: (a) openness – does the country admit its censoring activities and why it is censoring?; (b) transparency – does the country describe what it is censoring and the criteria for its censoring?; (c) narrowness – does the censoring block particular materials effectively and leaves other legitimate materials as they are?; and (c) accountability – does the country respond to the internet users and their needs in relation to filtering and are legislators liable to challenges for their wrong decisions? Based on these considerations, internet regulation should not be based on democratic considerations alone. The guidelines given by Bambauer provide a more logical basis for regulation, one which is likely to satisfy democratic ideals. Conclusion With the widespread use and growth of the internet, its impact – both negative and positive – has also been inevitable. For which reason, various governments have considered the imposition of regulations and censorship on internet use and internet content. These regulations and censorship practices range from various methods including the passage of laws, internet filtering, software blocking, and take-down orders. Governments with stringent political principles and policies have imposed censorship of politically seditious materials from the internet. Other more liberal governments consider this move as undemocratic, tantamount to the suppression of free speech. However, these censorship practices also provide stability to these countries, stability which cannot be otherwise controlled and provided by the unregulated use of the internet. There are dangers for many people using the internet, especially the younger population. Child pornography, violence, and similar materials are rampant in cyberspace. Young people are especially vulnerable to its impact. Too many children have been exploited in these websites and the imposition of regulations for their use seems to be imperative in order to legally ensure that legal remedies are available to users and victims. Although these acts of regulation may indeed violate our freedom of speech and other democratic privileges, there are limits to these privileges, limits which must be imposed based on the police power of the state and based on principles of fairness and justice. Bibliography Peng Hwa Ang & Berlinda Nadarajan, Censorship and Internet: a Singapore Perspective, ISOC, 1995, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004065.pdf [accessed 15 April 2012]. Derek Bambauer, Filtering in Oz: Australia’s Foray into Internet Censorship, U. Pa. J. Int’l L. vol. 31, no. (2009), pp. 493-531. Scott Beattie, Community, Space and Online Censorship: Regulating Pornotopia, London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009 Amy Lynne Bomse, The Dependence of Cyberspace, Duke L.J. vol. 50, no. 1717 (2001), p. 1740. Curtis Bradley & Jack Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, Harv. L. Rev. vol. 815, (1997). Brandi Colthorp, Internet censorship, Michigan State University, 2001, from https://www.msu.edu/~colthor3/definition.html [accessed 17 April 15 2012]. Ronald Deibert, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Connecticut: MIT Press, 2008 Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, J. & Open Net Initiative, Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, Connecticut: MIT Press, 2010 Jay Erikson, Asian activists are fighting rough-and-tumble guerrilla wars in cyberspace, Asiaweek, 24 (1998), 42-48. Laura Finley, Hawking Hits on the Information Highway: The Challenge of Online Drug Sales for Law Enforcement, New York: Peter Lang, 2008 Charles Fried, Book Review: Perfect Freedom or Perfect Control?, Harv. L. Rev. vol. 114, no. 606 (2000), p. 621 Michael Geist, The Reality of Bytes: Regulating Economic Activity in the Age of the Internet, Wash. L. Rev. vol. 73, no. 521(1998), p. 521. Jack Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy, U. Chi. L. Rev., vol. 1199, no. 65 (1998), p. 1200 James Gomez, Dumbing down democracy: Trends in internet regulation, surveillance and control in Asia, Pacific Journalism Review, vol. 10, no. 2 (2004), pp. 130-150 Koong-Choong Ho & Randy Kluver, Asia encounters the Internet. In K.C. Ho, Randolph Kluver and Kenneth C.C. Yang (eds.), Asia.com: Asia Encounters the Internet, London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Bertil Lintner, Denial of access. In Sheila Coronel (ed.), The Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia, Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism, (2001), pp. 21-41. Lewis Malakoff, Are you my mommy, or my big brother? Comparing internet censorship in Singapore and the United States, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, vol. 8, no. 2 (1999), pp. 423-452 Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, The Shape of Governance: Analyzing the World of Internet Regulation, from http://vmsweb.net/attachments/Govshape.pdf [accessed 15 April 2012]. Thomas Misa, Leonardo to the Internet: Technology and Culture from the Renaissance to the Present, London: JHU Press, 2011. Lin Neumann, The great firewall, Committee to Protect Journalists, (2001) from www.cpj.org/Briefings/2001/China_jan01/China_jan01.html [accessed 15 April 2012]. OpenNet Initiative, Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia in 2004, (2004) from http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/saudi/ [accessed 15 April 2012]. Graham Peace, Balancing free speech and censorship: Academia’s Response to the Internet. Communications of the ACM, vol. 46, no. 11, (2003), pp. 105-109 Ramesh Rahil. & Salahi Nakamura, Internet Braves Singapore's Tight Censorship Rule, Japan Econ Newswire, 1996 Abon Rahman, Another Bid to Regulate the Net, New Straits Times, 20, available in LEXIS, Asiapc Library, Nstrtt File, 1998. Steven Ratner, Essay: New Democracies, Old Atrocities: An Inquiry in International Law, Geo. L.J. vol. 67, no. 707 (1999), p. 740 Henry Reichman, & American Library Association, Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools, New York: ALA Editions, 2001. Singapore Broadcast Authority, How We Began, (1999), from http://www.sba.gov.sg/work/sbaabout.nsf/pages/aboutsba [accessed 16 April 2012]. Christopher Stevenson, Breaching the Great Firewall: China’s Internet Censorship and the Quest for Freedom of Expression in a Connected World, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 30, no. 2, (2007), pp. 531-558. Edmund Tee, Revised Internet Code Makes Taboo Areas Clear, Straits Times, 3, available in LEXIS, Asiapc Library, Strait File, 1997. Teo Pho Keng & Oon Yeoh, Neighbors Race to Become Asian IT Hub: Singapore, Malaysia, Plan Huge Internet Networks to Attract Investment, Nikkei Weekly, 21, LEXIS, Asiapc Library, Nikkei File, 1997 Adam Thierer, Who Rules the Net?: Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, New York: Cato Institute, 2003 Works Cited Read More