Internet and Society: Censorship of the Internet - Literature review Example

Internet and Society: Censorship of the Internet Student’s Name: Course Code: Lecture’s Name: Date of Submission: Internet and Society: Censorship of the Internet 1.0 Introduction Internet has grown as a phenomenal platform core in supporting online media that support exchange of data, collaborate and co-produce content outside the traditional media platforms (Punie et al., 2009, p.136). However, the same growth has been meted by censorship since early 1990s when over 30 countries enacted legislations relating to censorship (Cohen, 1997, p.12). Internet censorship discourse is one that draws mixed perspective on whether government or government agency should actively be engaged in regulating online media content, engage in self regulation or allow for total freedom. These viewpoints are contextualised within the domains of right to information, free press and freedom of speech visa vie rights and responsibility and social responsibility (Arino, 2007, p.120). The aim of this discourse is to wade into the debate of internet censorship in regard to how it can work in given contexts and at the same time how it can be detrimental to the society. 2.0 Concept of Censorship of Internet Leberknight et al. (2012, p.2) conceptualises censorship of internet as institutional arrangement, systems and practices put in place by the government or through statutory authority that can read and delete communication or materials they deem harmful or sensitive thereby restricting public access to such materials. On the other hand, Bitso, Fourie & Bothma (2012, p.4) sees censorship of the internet as the process of limiting or curtailing of communications and materials published or accessed at various levels such as government and private organisation. This mostly occurs as a result of political, economic, religious, social, moral, philosophical, military, corporate, ideological and educational underpinnings that differs from country to another. see appendix 1. Leberknight et al. (2012, p.2) indicates that there are two policies underpinning the need to censor internet. In their observation, they posit that censorship of the internet is conducted so as to curtail the performance of degradation and to enforce censors. In the first instance, the censorship is geared towards limiting information that might challenge the present status quo, but without any overhead or performance degradation. In the second instance, the cornerstone proposition is it aims at attaining a given degree of accuracy in regard to limiting objectionable materials and communications. To filter or block internet contents through various internet censorship policy, the focus can be directed to nodes, users and links. In regard to nodes, an attack points can be identified within the network through approaches such as server takedown or domain de-registration. Secondly, a particular user can be directly be censored by relevant bodies. In this regard, a particular user is activities are monitored and if found wanting they are blocked. The third approach to censorship is by attacking a link within network. This is realised through approaches such as filtering/ IP blocking, HTTP proxy filtering and or DNS tampering (Leberknight et al., 2012, P.2-3). See appendix 2. According to Xu, Mao & Halderman (2011, p.133), censorship through attacking a link within a network can be conducted at a three tier approach. The simple entry level of internet censorship is through IP blocking. However, this has approach has been easy to circumvent as webmasters can alter their IP and DNS record. The second one is through DNS hijacking. The third one is the keyword filtering that employs Intrusion Detection System. For example, China under their Great Firewall of China has employed keyword filtering both at AS and at the router level. 3.0 Theoretical Perspectives on Censorship of Internet The debate on internet censorship is greatly informed by the theoretical context of freedom of speech, press and media freedom visa vie the context of rights with responsibility where the argument is that there is no absolute rights as the rights of an individual is valid to the extent that it does not interfere with the rights of others. In the first instance, the opponents of internet censorship anchor their argument on Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Article supposes that every individual has undeniable privileges to advance, their opinions, thoughts and feeling through various platforms at their disposal. For instance, Harmon (2013) indicates the same freedom is guaranteed in Australian Constitution even though it is not been expressly stated. The anti censorship debate is taken a notch higher by John Stuart Mill work of ‘Own Liberty’ that argues for protection of individuals from ‘tyranny of majority and government authority’. The bottom line of the proposition is that all individuals are not infallible and that even in any false statement, to an extent there is truth in it. Equally, he proposes that the plausibility of ideas are best tested against of others so as to allow the consumers comprehend the truth in it. Finally, there is the realisation that even though a statement might be true, its strength is limited if its owners are not able to subject it to discussion. As such the premise is that all have the right to free speech and role to criticise government, self determination by engaging in governance discourse (Gelber, 2002, p.108-110). For instance, opponents of censoring internet based on offensive and hate speech postulate that ‘offensive speech is answered by more speech’ (Abrams v. United States 1919 cited in Henry, 2009, p.236). In this expose, the cornerstone is that individuals have the capacity to comprehend and decide out of the crowded option which ideas connects to the expectations and thus being able to relinquish those that are not up to par. In a nutshell, the premise is that a non plausible ideas in the public sphere such offensive speech are not better censored, but be allowed as they can be falsified through statements that shed light on expected values and norms (Henry, 2009, p.236). On the other hand, the pro censorship approach argues that there is no absolute right. As such, every right is and should be accompanied by responsibility. Within this premise, individuals should not be allowed to post any material that they deem suitable without taking into consideration the large aspirations of the society in legal, moral and ethical perspectives (Arino, 2007, p.120 & 121). Moreover, it is appreciated that individual rationality can be substituted by collective rationality (Benabou & Tirole, 2010, p.1). In this regard, the implementer of collective rationality of people is the government. Nerone (2002, p.184) observes that this inability inability by internet users to utilise internet in a responsible manner is what enrages the public hence giving the government audacity to regulate the media. Thus, with such negative tendencies which at a time might not augur well with national cohesion, integration and security the government as regulator and as a guarantor of rights is supposed to intervene and hence, the discourse for the need of regulating online media for the sake of public welfare that is diverse and not private mileage. For instance, protection under freedom of speech cannot be guaranteed when an individual engages in libel, slander and speech (Cohen, 2007, p.2). 4.0 View Points on Censorship of Internet 4.1 How Censorship Can Work The pro censorship group advocacy is premised on the argument that someone who has ‘nothing to hide’ has nothing to fear from government surveillance. The premise for this argument is that who are act responsibly know that they are within the confines of the law and whether the government eaves drop on their online activities so long as is for national interest then there is no qualm about it. Halliday (2012) observes that any law abiding citizen should be wary of social vices and criminal activity within the online platform and thus, should aid the government in curtailing the same so as to align with the aspirations safer environment. Ang & Nadarajan (1996, p.73), notes that censorship is a proactive measure that works in two critical domains. In their perspective, censorship works in curtailing the negative impacts of online media on society/ individuals. Thus, they posit that it is prudent to error by taking caution instead of having to engage in resolving the impact. In the second instance, they note that there are given circumstances, that media reports have lead to racial riots and shedding of blood and this implies that internet through online media is not exclusive of this reality and hence need for censorship. The first rationale for internet censorship and how it can work rests on the fact that there are certain deviant individuals who might want to exploit the internet for wrong reasons that might not auger well with the national security, cohesion and community & individuals’ rights. According to Fong (2003, p.147) internet presents a borders ubiquitous & universal platform that does not oblige any party to acquire any licensing prior to utilising it. It is this lacuna that certain individuals with negative intent exploit to publish or circulate unethical or offensive materials. Indeed, the call for censorship is hastened by the fact that in a given circumstances, posting on online media has capability of going viral, thus enhancing the damage as they can be embedded on other networks and blogs (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p.210). As such, internet censorship by government is important in helping the government not to re-invent the wheel as previous experiences shows that the inability or laxity to censure offensive speech propagated through communication medium can lead to national, regional and global conflicts and insecurity such as racial and ethnic violence. A case example is the happening in Rwanda where individuals relied on communication platforms such as Radio to propagate hate speech (Timmermann, 2005, p.263; Orentlicher, 2005, p.2). The same was experienced in Germany before world war two where communication mediums were used to propagate war mongering sentiments (Brugger, 2003, p.2). The question that one would easily ask is with the wide reach on internet/ universalism and ubiquity, if it is not censored what can be the magnitude of impact if negative aspects such as hate/offensive speech are not censored. The bottonline argument and realisation is that internet censorship is integral in protecting the public, children and individuals from unwanted materials and communications that constitutes slander, libel, unethical material and obscene products (Cohen, 2007, p.2). The second rationale for censorship is to protect human dignity (Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.11). For instance, the one area that internet users have fared badly is in relation to offensive and hate speech and as such, internet censorship becomes significant. Offensive speech implies on the online platform implies spreading of hate propaganda, racial profiling and discrimination in the social media, blogs and other online media outlets. The impact of such posting works in a double edged impact. In the first instance, it poisons the mind of the recipients who can the direct their negative feelings towards the other party. This can lead to animosity, social and polecat unrest. On the other side, offensive speech greatly impact on the confidence of those whom it is directed to leading to psychosocial impacts such trauma and depression (Haupt, 2005, p.307). One case example that highlights importance of censorship is the case of social media or citizen journalism. In this perspective individuals have the opportunity to post unverified information that might end up not being true. As such, instead of the government engaging in a knee jerk reaction, they have the opportunity to check the posts before they are availed to the larger public or they have the capacity to track down the user who posted the information so as to subject that individual to legal recourse (Laboy, Landry, Shtern, 2010, p.233). Away from the government level, at organisational level, it is integral to censor internet by having filters to protect children from obscene multimedia products. For instance, under family friendly libraries, libraries in America are expected to install filters that are able to control display of obscene scenes such as child pornography. For Instance, implementation of Child Internet Protection Act that obliged organisations to put in place strategies that filter unwanted products that are not suitable for children has helped reduce exposure to such materials (Heins, Cho & Feldman, 2006, p.2-3). The same is applicable at university level where the ultimate goal of internet is to aid learning and not to expose students to or them to post deviant behaviours such as pornography, unwanted information such bomb making and slanderous statements (Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.10). see appendix 3 for description on scope and positive aspect of internet censorship. According to Leberknight et al. (2012, p.14) the ultimate benefit of censorship is the ability to elicit trust in technology such as the internet. The rationale for such proposition is because censorship can guarantee other aspects such as ensuring economic securing by limiting issues such as fraud; curtailing information hacking; protection of privacy and protection of reputation by limiting defamatory statements and unethical advertising (Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.11). 4.2 How it can be detriment to the society The discourse on how internet censorship can be detriment to the society is greatly linked to the role platform such as online media play in dissemination of information, citizenry participation in governance and ability of such censorship platforms can be used to target individuals to sustain status quo and political ends. This is premised on the realisation that most limitations promulgated by regulators are antagonistic in nature instead of being mutually reinforcing. The indivisibility trait of freedom of speech proscribes or disallows content rooted speech regulation (Haupt, 2005, p.312). The greatest concern within this debate is limitation of speech which can to a greater extent lead to limitation of democratic space. Kagan (1993, p.873 & 875) observes that bid to regulate internet or other media platform through censorship normally loses the plot and objectivity as it tend to shift to context and viewpoint restriction instead of pragmatic grounds. As such, such kind of paradigm shift leads to curtailment of freedom of speech which most constitutions protection as it creates a situation where one perspective is promoted as correct while the other one wished away as wrong. In this regard, most internet censorship does not lead viewpoint neutrality as intended, but the creation of uneven platform that does not align to democratic principles. The realisation is that free internet mesh within the larger development aspiration where citizenry are able to critique within the public sphere and shape their development destiny (UN, 2013). In this regard, Balding (2007, p.10) posits that “freedom of press is never simply handed by government, it is always the fruit of tremendous resistance of a titanic struggle between desire for truth and justice, free expression & debate and the forces of oppression & obscurantism”. There are various circumstances that inadequate information to public has been exploited through filtering online content that is accessed by the public. A case example China where censorship is used to attain personal political agenda of preserving status quo by limiting desenting voices (Chen, 2007, p.63; Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.10). The other concern is the possibility of over blocking. This leads to blocking of other websites which might not be harmful thus limiting society access to information. A case example is that of Iran as shown in appendix 4 & 5. This is because on average, most organisations experience approximately, 10, 000 to 30, 000 new web pages entering the ‘work queues’ and as a result of relying keyword-based technology most of these valuable sites are blocked (Heins, Cho & Feldman, 2006, p.2). Equally, the interconnectedness of the internet and the idea behind internet being ‘free’ if censored might have an impact beyond the intended boundary (Ang & Nadarajan, 1996, p.5). Closely connected to the above is the privacy of user especially when user monitoring is employed. The core concern is what the tracked information is being utilised for. As such it creates unknown fear thus, reducing trust to such system (Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.12). see appendix 6 for description on scope and positive aspect of internet censorship. 5.0 Conclusion The aim of this paper was to examine how internet can work in given contexts and at the same time how it can be detrimental to the society. The paper realised that censorship of internet can work in ensuring national security, protection of human dignity and minors. On the other hand, the paper found out censorship of internet restricts individual liberty and freedom of speech, it can be used to settle political vendetta by limiting dissent and in certain context, it leads to over blocking of useful sites. References Ang, P. H., & Nadarajan, B. (1996). Censorship and the Internet: a Singapore perspective. Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 72-78. Arino, M. (2007). Content regulation and new media: A case study of online video portals. Communications and Strategies, 66, 115. Aryan, S., Aryan, H., & Halderman, J. A. (2013, August). Internet Censorship in Iran: A First Look. In Presented as part of the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet}. USENIX}. Balding, T. Press freedom: every citizen’s right in UNESCO (2007). New media: the press freedom dimension, challenges and opportunities of new media for press freedom. Paris: UNESCO. Benabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica Vol. 77, pp. 1-19. Bitso, C., Fourie, I., & Bothma, T. (2012). Trends in transition from classical censorship to Internet censorship: selected country overviews. FAIFE Spotlight. Boyd, D.M & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Chen, X. 2007. The dynamics of Chinese media practices and regulation: explanations and interpretations. Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Planning, Governance and Globalization Cohen, H. (2007, April). Freedom of speech and press: exceptions to the First Amendment. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE. Fong, M. W. L. In the virtual world in Khosrow-pour, M. ed. (2003). Information technology and organization: trends, issues, challenges and solutions. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Gelber, K. (2002). Free Speech, Hate Speech and an Australian Bill of Rights. Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 2(3), 107-118. Halliday, J. (2 April, 2012). Internet companies warn over the government email surveillance plans. The Guardian. Retrieved on 27 May 2014 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/02/internet- companies-warn-government-email-surveillance. Harmon, J. (2013). Free speech and free press around the world: Australia. Retrieved on 27 May, 2014 from: http://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/australia-2/. Heins, M., Cho, C., & Feldman, A. (2006). Internet filters: A public policy report. New York: Brennan Center for Justice. Henry, J. S. (2009). Beyond free speech: novel approaches to hate on the Internet in the United States. Information & Communications Technology Law, 18(2), 235-251. Kagan, E. (1993). Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After RAV. U. Chi. L. Rev., 60, 873. Laboy, M., Landry, N. and Shtern, J. (2010). Digital solidarities, communication policy and multi-stakeholder governance: the legacy of the world summit on the information society. New York: Peter Lang Publishers. Leberknight, C. S., Chiang, M., Poor, H. V., & Wong, F. (2012). A taxonomy of Internet censorship and anti-censorship. Shanghai. Nerone, J. C. (2002). Social responsibility theory. McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory, 183-193. Orentlicher, D. F. (2005). Criminalizing Hate Speech: A Comment on the ICTR’s Judgment in The Prosecutor v. Nahimana, et al. Human Rights Brief, 13(1), 1. Punie, Y., Lusoli, W., Centeno, C., Misuraca, G. and Broster, D. (2009). The Impact of Social Computing on the EU Information Society and Economy, IPTS European Commission – Joint Research Centre, Seville. Timmermann, W. K. (2005). The Relationship between Hate Propaganda and Incitement to Genocide: A New Trend in International Law Towards Criminalization of Hate Propaganda?. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18(2), 257-282. UN (2013). Press freedom: freedom of expression, a human right. Retrieved on 27 May, 2014 from: http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday/background.shtml. Xu, X., Mao, Z. M., & Halderman, J. A. (2011, January). Internet censorship in China: Where does the filtering occur?. In Passive and Active Measurement (pp. 133-142). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Appendices Appendix 1: Rationale for internet filtering Source: Leberknight et al., 2012, p.6 Appendix two: approaches to internet censorship Source: Leberknight et al., 2012, p.4 Appendix 3: scope of censorship in countries and positive perspective on internet censorship Source: Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.22-23 Appendix 4: effects of over blocking in Iran on US websites Source: Aryan, Aryan, & Halderman, 2013, p.3 Appendix 5: effects of over blocking in Iran Source: Aryan, Aryan, & Halderman, 2013, p.4 Appendix 6: scope of censorship in countries and negative perspective on internet censorship Source: Bitso, Fourie & Bothma, 2012, p.22-23 Read More