Internet Censorship as a Way of Restricting Human Rights

The various issues of internet censorship have been gaining coverage over the years as technology continues to advance and evolve. Many parts of the world, like China and Britain who have already begun to place internet censorship laws on to the public. The discussion around the topic and the news of countries placing these laws have spread all over the world and has caused an uproar within the public. Though many find that internet censorship is necessary to protect citizens from harmful activities, yet it does not mean that the public should allow the government to pry into their freedoms, control the influx of information, and produce negative economic impacts.

Firstly, the censorship of the internet that governments create laws for has begun to pry into the freedoms of the citizens for various reasons. This demonstrated by attacks towards sites online, that share opposing views and leak out vital information that the government silences. This is demonstrated by how “Recent publications made by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks [has] fuelled an emotionally charged debate about the secrecy of government information and the people's right to know. This debate has turned into a massive attack on the right of intermediaries to publish truthful information. Make no mistake — this is about much more than WikiLeaks. Shutting down sites like WikiLeaks is a very serious attack on freedom of expression,”. This shows how governments decide to take action against sites that are using their freedom of speech, granted by the government, to reveal the inner workings of corruption within organizations. Also, it has been known that “Social media are platforms, not publishers. They provide the means for large numbers of people to produce and consume information. They are open to both producers and consumers. Social media managers regulate the content on a platform, but the platform does not host everything that is posted on it”. Also, under the laws of the United States, “The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from state action. Social media are not government and hence are not constrained by the First Amendment. These platforms are protected by the First Amendment but need not apply it to the speech by their users”. This demonstrates how the government would be infringing on the rights of its citizens when attempting to censor the internet.

Secondly, internet censorship allows the government to unethically control the influx of information that goes out to the public, and it presents issues for a country’s citizens. Various countries and their governments, such as North Korea and Britain, have already placed laws that restrict the influx of information from both a national and global context to their citizens and have caused much of an outcry within the public. This is demonstrated by, how and, “where citizens’ access to content is in some cases regulated by the government. Some countries suppress graphic content, speech the government determines is hateful and other content deemed offensive. In North Korea, most people are denied access to the global internet altogether”. This demonstrates how countries like North Korea are placing unethical laws and regulations on the internet access that their citizens are available to. Also “With algorithmic censorship, we can see a safer online community but also miss out on learning opportunities that get accidentally blipped out of existence with an algorithmic censor”. This demonstrates how a country censoring information; it can morally deprive its citizens the ability to learn from various other cultures and communities. Additionally, the moral dilemma of ignorance in our society arises when, “with internet censorship, there is a lack of truth which exists in such a policy. That means there is a societal ignorance in place that a ruling party could attempt to control”. This demonstrates that with the censorship of the internet, countries limit the influx of information that would hinder the experiences and knowledge of the citizens, and produce a society built on social ignorance. In all this shows that the internet should not be censored due to being able to provide information to society.

Thirdly, internet censorship contains the ability to produce negative economic impacts to a country and regions that badly harms businesses. This is shown by how, “In a world of internet censorship, entrepreneurs would be forced to have their ideas approved by an oversight committee, board, or individual instead of pursuing the idea immediately on their own. If a business in the same industry as the entrepreneur has enough wealth or influence, they could potentially restrict the entrepreneur from pursuing their opportunity”. This demonstrates how negatively internet censorship can affect freelancers, and entrepreneurs achieve their ranks and play their roles within businesses. Also, by “Allowing the government or some other entity to declare what is “good” or “bad” for the internet can have a dramatic economic impact at the local level. If a business cannot promote themselves online or sell their goods on an e-commerce platform, then they are placed in a disadvantageous state compared to industry competitors who would be allowed to sell online”. This demonstrates how by allowing the government to decide what is good or bad towards the public, this can massively affect the wellbeing of companies and their employees from having equal opportunities as others. Lastly has been shown from, “research from Darrell West, VP and Director of Governance Studies and the founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion in 2015. The decision to cut connectivity in Egypt came at a cost of $90 million. Censoring content is costly and it will come at the expense of taxpayers”. This research demonstrates how costly it can be for the government to actually impact censorship, and that the majority of the funding comes from taxpayers who are being negatively affected just like the businesses.

Then again, there are those who believe that internet censorship is necessary to protect citizens. It is common knowledge that our society is becoming dependent on technology and the internet in our daily lives, so there are many opportunities for people to take advantage of those online. For instance, “More than 15.4 million reports of identity theft were compiled by Javelin Strategy and Research, which reflects a 16% increase in the total number of reports from 2015 figures. Restricting content that would allow identity information to be easily shared could lessen the impact that identity theft causes to a society”. This demonstrates the need for those to protect themselves from scammers and hackers online, yet this is more of a personal responsibility than one that the government should completely focus on. Similar to this is how, “by creating internet censorship regulations with strict and mandatory penalties for a violation, it could become possible to reduce the number of hacking incidents that occur. That could have a positive impact on national security because the restrictions would possibly prevent alleged incidents like what occurred during the 2016 US Presidential election”. This again demonstrates the need for protection yet would not be able to commit to itself due to the continuing presence of hackers and scammers. Additionally, “If the government is dictating what individuals can see online, then people are no longer as responsible for the decisions they make. It cedes that control over to the government”. This demonstrates how the government would be taking control over those, similar to how hackers and scammers end up taking control over a person's life, due to their own inability to be mindful of the dangers. In conclusion, there should not be censorship of the internet due to the lack of true protection for the citizens.

In addition, there are those who believe that the censorship of the internet is necessary to protect the public from harmful activities that the dark parts of the internet contains. It is common knowledge that there are various websites that contain adult themes and are not suitable for children. This knowledge has prompted various countries have taken the initiative to tackle these forms through the means of censorship yet has been met with several issues. For instance, Australia has their “clean-feed” filter that is meant to block out porn websites yet, “Unfortunately, [the public] demand that the government not 'mess with our porn' suggests they are blind to the sexism that underpins the porn industry — it turns women into objects of male pleasure that must live up to a mass-marketed beauty ideal to be considered attractive. But the Rudd government's internet censorship agenda is hardly designed to counter sexism either. And no filtering software can be trusted to distinguish between pornography and health advice”. This demonstrates how though the idea of internet censorship is a protective and good proposition, yet in practice generate many issues that even computers are not fully entrusted by the public to identify what is acceptable or not. Instead of going towards this option “Congress should defend safe harbours, protect anonymous speech, encourage platforms to be open about their takedown rules and to follow a consistent, fair, and transparent process, and avoid promulgating any new intermediary requirements that might have unintended consequences for online speech”. This would then decrease the number of inappropriate sites that can possibly be seen by children, and other audiences. While those continue to encourage censorship of the internet that, “There are dark areas of the internet where anything goes right now. Access to illicit drugs, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and child pornography can be accessed with relative ease by those who seek out such things”. There are already precautions that various medias, and sites take to prevent children from accessing adult-themed and illegal activities, it is ultimately the parents’ responsibility to watch over and teach their children about the dangers. In conclusion, the internet should not be censored due to already having precautions to combat illegal activities online.

In conclusion, the censorship is morally and ethically wrong due to the government being complacent in the act of infringing on the rights of their citizens, withholding information from them, and how negatively the government would be affecting future and current businesses. Though many would state that it’s a morally good act to censor the internet to protect citizens from harmful activities, it will be lacking in its actual control, and force the government to be in control of the duties of an individual.

Bibliography

• Ayres, C. (n.d.). 13 Internet Censorship Pros and Cons. 
• McSherry, C., & McKinney, I. (2018, April 26). Platform Censorship Won't Fix the Internet. 
• Pemberton, A., & Harrison, P. (2016, September 05). Why internet censorship is wrong. 
• Phillips, A. (2018, August 27). The Moral Dilemma of Algorithmic Censorship. 
• Samples, J. (2019, April 09). Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media. 
• EFF. (2011, October 06). Say No to Online Censorship! 
• Trainer, M. (2018, January 31). Censor the internet? Bad idea.
• Xu, X., Mao, Z.M. and Halderman, J.A., 2011, March. Internet censorship in China: Where does the filtering occur?. In International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement (pp. 133-142). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• 9 Depken, C.A., 2006. Who supports Internet censorship?. First Monday, 11(9).
• House, F., 2009. Freedom on the Net.
• Aryan, S., Aryan, H. and Halderman, J.A., 2013. Internet censorship in Iran: A first look. In Presented as part of the 3rd {USENIX} Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet.
• Duthie, F., 2010. Libraries and the Ethics of Censorship. The Australian Library Journal, 59(3), pp.85-94.
• Kreimer, S.F., 2006. Censorship by proxy: The First Amendment, internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link. U. Pa. L. Rev., 155, p.11.
• 5 Current issues of ‘Internet censorship’: bullying, discrimination, harassment and freedom of expression | Australian Human Rights Commission. 2019. 5 Current issues of ‘Internet censorship’: bullying, discrimination, harassment and freedom of expression | Australian Human Rights Commission.