is internet censorship necessary essay

Internet Censorship: Definition, Types, and How It Can Affect You

DataProt is supported by its audience. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn a commission. This, however, does not influence the evaluations in our reviews. Learn More .

Affiliate Disclosure

DataProt is an independent review site dedicated to providing accurate information about various cybersecurity products.

DataProt remains financially sustainable by participating in a series of affiliate partnerships - it is visitors’ clicks on links that cover the expenses of running this site. Our website also includes reviews of products or services for which we do not receive monetary compensation.

DataProt's in-house writing team writes all the site’s content after in-depth research, and advertisers have no control over the personal opinions expressed by team members, whose job is to stay faithful to the truth and remain objective.

Some pages may include user-generated content in the comment section. The opinions expressed in the comment section do not reflect those of DataProt.

Internet censorship is a big deal. The days of complete cyber freedom are all but gone, with  companies and governments interfering with the web. Their involvement is ruining the cyberworld for the rest of us in various ways, with censorship being the most prominent.

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed online. It happens when governments, organizations, or individuals restrict or block access to web content. In this article, we’ll be explaining how censorship happens, its impact on the internet, and how to avoid it. 

What Is Internet Censorship and How It Happens

Some countries censor the internet because they don’t want their citizens to see things that might upset them or make them think differently. They also might do this to keep people from organizing protests or speaking out against the government.

Their goal, usually, is to make it difficult to get accurate information about what’s going on in the world or stop people from being able to share their opinions freely.

But, the government internet censorship can happen for a variety of other reasons , including political, religious, or moral grounds and restricting media freedom. 

While government-level censorship is meant to shut down dissidents, there are other reasons why organizations and groups of people restrict internet access to others. An organization may block certain websites to protect its members from offensive or inappropriate content or simply to increase productivity by limiting access to entertainment and social media sites.

Censorship of the internet happens in one of two directions:

• Top-down censorship is when a government or organization tells service providers what content to block. In some cases, laws may require certain content to be censored. Users have no say in this and can’t choose what to access. 
• Self-imposed censorship is associated with individuals or groups self-censoring by choosing what content to avoid. For example, someone may decide not to view certain websites because they know their government will censor the information, making it inaccurate. 

Different Types of Web Censorship

Different things can be censored, like specific pictures, words, or whole websites and internet protocols. There are also different ways to censor things – blocking either full access to the material or limiting searches for censored terms.

Government-level Censorship

One type of censorship is when a government makes it illegal to say certain things . For instance, in China, the government has made it illegal to talk about certain topics online, like democracy or human rights. They do this by censoring websites that discuss these topics and punishing people who break the rules. Governments work with ISPs to put those restrictions into motion, either by outright blocking access to websites or redirecting traffic to similar, regulated sites.

Platform Restrictions

Another type of censorship is when social media companies block certain content from their platforms . For example, Facebook has been criticized for censoring body positivity and sex education posts. Likewise, YouTube has been accused of censoring videos about LGBTQ+ rights, mental health, and COVID-19 awareness. In this case, platforms issue take-down notices, followed by the removal of said content.

It’s not uncommon for governments to even force tech companies to impose content restrictions based on their own propaganda. In such a case, the government would strong-arm content hosts into submission by threatening outright bans of their platforms. As a counterpoint, Twitter has started clearly marking government-related profiles, so users can see at a glance whether the profile could be a part of a propaganda machine. It’s not much, but at least it helps fight the censorship on the internet.

Local Restrictions

Lastly, censorship can happen on a smaller scale within a single institution. For example, a school may restrict access to certain parts of the internet or even key phrases. That way, the students cannot use the school’s computers to visit inappropriate websites like adult websites or social networks.

Similarly, employers may put blocks on specific apps, services, and websites, so the employees can only access the software and websites they allow them to. While we’ll be discussing how to avoid content blocks and censorship using free VPNs and similar tactics, we strongly advise caution in such situations.

How Censorship Works in Different Countries

Some countries have rigid censorship laws, while others have none at all. China is well-known for its internet restrictions, which some call the “great firewall of China.” The Chinese government blocks access to many websites and social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter. Google’s search engine, as well as all other Google products, is also banned in China. The government is censoring search results and blocks certain words from being used online.

In Saudi Arabia, the government filters content based on religious and moral values. It usually blocks websites that contain pornography or material that could be considered offensive to Islam. In Iran, the government blocks websites that are critical of the regime or that contain information that could be used to foment dissent.

In Russia, a new law requires internet service providers to censor websites that the government decides are “extremist.” This can include foreign websites that have critical opinions of the government in question or that provide information about protests or other forms of defiance.

Censorship can also happen in less obvious ways. For example, many countries require internet companies to collect data about their users’ activities. This data can be used to track people and see what they’re doing online. Needless to say that such laws disrupt net neutrality.

Impact of Censorship

Increased censorship can have a number of negative effects. For starters, it limits people’s ability to access information and ideas. This can lead to a loss of knowledge and opportunities for education and personal growth. 

Additionally, digital censorship can stifle creativity and critical thinking . Having no access to the online world can restrain people’s ability to freely express themselves. When people are only exposed to one side of an issue, it can be challenging to develop a well-rounded opinion. Seeing only one aspect of the whole picture can also lead to misinformation.

Censorship can create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. People may grow afraid of expressing their opinions or sharing their ideas, which can lead to a feeling of isolation and disconnection.

Why Is Internet Freedom Important

Since the early days of the internet, people have been fighting for online freedom. The internet has become an essential part of our lives, so much so that internet access has been declared a basic human right by the UN Resolution in 2016. Censoring the internet denies us that basic right.

Access to the internet means access to information, education, and communication. It allows us to connect with friends and family and participate in the global community. It is essential for businesses and for the economy, which the pandemic years especially confirmed to be true. When regulations on the type of content we can access are imposed, serious issues may arise, such as when restrictions infringe on medical websites that people need. 

Cyberspace is also a powerful tool for democracy and human rights. The UN recognized the importance of the internet in a Resolution passed in 2016, declaring it a basic human right. The general belief is that the internet is something all people should have access to. Restricting access to parts of the internet is threading on human rights, rights to community, learning, and prospering in this modern world.

How to Circumvent Censorship

If you live in a country with restricted internet, there are several ways to bypass the restrictions and gain access to all internet content.

Web proxies are the simplest, fastest way to get around censorship and regional restrictions on the internet. They work by routing your traffic through a different server so that the website you are trying to visit doesn’t know your true IP address. This can be used to get around simple content filters, like the ones your school or workplace may have in place.

Web proxies are not perfect, however. They can be slow, and they don’t always work with every website. Additionally, your traffic is still going through another server, which means that the proxy owner could be snooping on your traffic and detecting phony IP addresses. More important – your internet service provider and, thus, the government, can still know what you were browsing.

Another way to get access to censored websites is to use a virtual private network. VPNs create a private, secure connection between two devices, which can be used to access restricted websites. When you use a VPN that doesn’t log data, your traffic is encrypted, so your ISP or anyone else can’t see what you’re doing online. Even more important, there’s no data saved on the provider’s side as if you’ve never used the service at all. 

While VPNs are legal in most parts of the world, some countries block them and can even issue a fine if you get caught. If you’re using a VPN in a country where they are not allowed or just worried about the repercussions, you may need to use a different method to access restricted websites.

Tor Browser

Lastly, you might only need to switch your internet browser to a more secure one. Tor is a free browser that allows you to surf the internet anonymously. By encrypting traffic and bouncing it through a distributed network of relays, Tor makes it difficult for anyone to track a user’s online activity.

The main downside to using Tor is that it can be slow. Because traffic is routed through multiple relays, each with its own bandwidth limitations, Tor users may experience slowdowns when browsing the web. Additionally, some websites may block traffic from known Tor relays, making them inaccessible to Tor users.

Final Thoughts

Internet censorship, as explained, can be a difficult issue to navigate. On the one hand, it’s important to protect people from offensive or harmful material. On the other hand, it is important to allow people to freely access information and express themselves. 

Lastly, as the internet is now considered a basic human right, imposing restrictions of such kind is a sign of dictatorship and not a signal that the government actually cares about pressing issues.

Further reading

The Onion Theory of Data Security Layers

What Is the Dark Web? Myths and Facts About the Hidden Internet

Leave a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges and Departments
• Email and phone search
• Give to Cambridge
• Museums and collections
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Postgraduate events
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement

Internet censorship: making the hidden visible

• Research home
• About research overview
• Animal research overview
• Overseeing animal research overview
• The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
• Animal welfare and ethics
• Report on the allegations and matters raised in the BUAV report
• What types of animal do we use? overview
• Guinea pigs
• Equine species
• Naked mole-rats
• Non-human primates (marmosets)
• Other birds
• Non-technical summaries
• Animal Welfare Policy
• Alternatives to animal use
• Further information
• Funding Agency Committee Members
• Research integrity
• Horizons magazine
• Strategic Initiatives & Networks
• Nobel Prize
• Interdisciplinary Research Centres
• Open access
• Energy sector partnerships
• Podcasts overview
• S2 ep1: What is the future?
• S2 ep2: What did the future look like in the past?
• S2 ep3: What is the future of wellbeing?
• S2 ep4 What would a more just future look like?
• Research impact

Despite being founded on ideals of freedom and openness, censorship on the internet is rampant, with more than 60 countries engaging in some form of state-sponsored censorship. A research project at the University of Cambridge is aiming to uncover the scale of this censorship, and to understand how it affects users and publishers of information

Censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale Sheharbano Khattak

For all the controversy it caused, Fitna is not a great film. The 17-minute short, by the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, was a way for him to express his opinion that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Understandably, the rest of the world did not see things the same way. In advance of its release in 2008, the film received widespread condemnation, especially within the Muslim community.

When a trailer for Fitna was released on YouTube, authorities in Pakistan demanded that it be removed from the site. YouTube offered to block the video in Pakistan, but would not agree to remove it entirely. When YouTube relayed this decision back to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), the decision was made to block YouTube.

Although Pakistan has been intermittently blocking content since 2006, a more persistent blocking policy was implemented in 2011, when porn content was censored in response to a media report that highlighted Pakistan as the top country in terms of searches for porn. Then, in 2012, YouTube was blocked for three years when a video, deemed blasphemous, appeared on the website. Only in January this year was the ban lifted, when Google, which owns YouTube, launched a Pakistan-specific version, and introduced a process by which governments can request the blocking of access to offending material.

All of this raises the thorny issue of censorship. Those censoring might raise objections to material on the basis of offensiveness or incitement to violence (more than a dozen people died in Pakistan following widespread protests over the video uploaded to YouTube in 2012). But when users aren’t able to access a particular site, they often don’t know whether it’s because the site is down, or if some force is preventing them from accessing it. How can users know what is being censored and why?

“The goal of a censor is to disrupt the flow of information,” says Sheharbano Khattak, a PhD student in Cambridge’s Computer Laboratory, who studies internet censorship and its effects. “internet censorship threatens free and open access to information. There’s no code of conduct when it comes to censorship: those doing the censoring – usually governments – aren’t in the habit of revealing what they’re blocking access to.” The goal of her research is to make the hidden visible.

She explains that we haven’t got a clear understanding of the consequences of censorship: how it affects different stakeholders, the steps those stakeholders take in response to censorship, how effective an act of censorship is, and what kind of collateral damage it causes.

Because censorship operates in an inherently adversarial environment, gathering relevant datasets is difficult. Much of the key information, such as what was censored and how, is missing. In her research, Khattak has developed methodologies that enable her to monitor censorship by characterising what normal data looks like and flagging anomalies within the data that are indicative of censorship.

She designs experiments to measure various aspects of censorship, to detect censorship in actively and passively collected data, and to measure how censorship affects various players.

The primary reasons for government-mandated censorship are political, religious or cultural. A censor might take a range of steps to stop the publication of information, to prevent access to that information by disrupting the link between the user and the publisher, or to directly prevent users from accessing that information. But the key point is to stop that information from being disseminated.

Internet censorship takes two main forms: user-side and publisher-side. In user-side censorship, the censor disrupts the link between the user and the publisher. The interruption can be made at various points in the process between a user typing an address into their browser and being served a site on their screen. Users may see a variety of different error messages, depending on what the censor wants them to know. 

“The thing is, even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where the government tells people that certain content is censored, how can we be sure of everything they’re stopping their citizens from being able to access?” asks Khattak. “When a government has the power to block access to large parts of the internet, how can we be sure that they’re not blocking more than they’re letting on?”

What Khattak does is characterise the demand for blocked content and try to work out where it goes. In the case of the blocking of YouTube in 2012 in Pakistan, a lot of the demand went to rival video sites like Daily Motion. But in the case of pornographic material, which is also heavily censored in Pakistan, the government censors didn’t have a comprehensive list of sites that were blacklisted, so plenty of pornographic content slipped through the censors’ nets. 

Despite any government’s best efforts, there will always be individuals and publishers who can get around censors, and access or publish blocked content through the use of censorship resistance systems. A desirable property, of any censorship resistance system is to ensure that users are not traceable, but usually users have to combine them with anonymity services such as Tor.

“It’s like an arms race, because the technology which is used to retrieve and disseminate information is constantly evolving,” says Khattak. “We now have social media sites which have loads of user-generated content, so it’s very difficult for a censor to retain control of this information because there’s so much of it. And because this content is hosted by sites like Google or Twitter that integrate a plethora of services, wholesale blocking of these websites is not an option most censors might be willing to consider.”

In addition to traditional censorship, Khattak also highlights a new kind of censorship – publisher-side censorship – where websites refuse to offer services to a certain class of users. Specifically, she looks at the differential treatments of Tor users by some parts of the web. The issue with services like Tor is that visitors to a website are anonymised, so the owner of the website doesn’t know where their visitors are coming from. There is increasing use of publisher-side censorship from site owners who want to block users of Tor or other anonymising systems.

“Censorship is not a new thing,” says Khattak. “Those in power have used censorship to suppress speech or writings deemed objectionable for as long as human discourse has existed. However, censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale, while possibly remaining discrete so that users are not even aware that they are being subjected to censored information.”

Professor Jon Crowcroft, who Khattak works with, agrees: “It’s often said that, online, we live in an echo chamber, where we hear only things we agree with. This is a side of the filter bubble that has its flaws, but is our own choosing. The darker side is when someone else gets to determine what we see, despite our interests. This is why internet censorship is so concerning.”

“While the cat and mouse game between the censors and their opponents will probably always exist,” says Khattak. “I hope that studies such as mine will illuminate and bring more transparency to this opaque and complex subject, and inform policy around the legality and ethics of such practices.”

Read this next

Emissions and evasions

Lights could be the future of the internet and data transmission

The Misinformation Susceptibility Test

Rewarding accuracy instead of partisan pandering reduces political divisions over the truth

Barbed wire

Credit: Hernán Piñera

Search research

Sign up to receive our weekly research email.

Our selection of the week's biggest Cambridge research news sent directly to your inbox. Enter your email address, confirm you're happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive a weekly Cambridge research news summary by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our weekly research news email. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

• digital media
• social media
• Digital society
• Sheharbano Khattak
• Jon Crowcroft
• Computer Laboratory
• School of Technology

Connect with us

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility statement
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Skip to content

Harvard Law & Policy Review

Online Censorship Is Unavoidable—So How Can We Improve It?

By Ben Horton*

A few weeks ago, Professors Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods ignited controversy by suggesting in the Atlantic that China was right and America was wrong about internet censorship and surveillance. This seemingly contrarian stance rubbed people the wrong way , especially given reports that China’s online censorship delayed their response to COVID-19 and that Chinese agents have actively disseminated disinformation about the virus—and then attempted to suppress reports revealing their disinformation campaign .

Except the professors’ critics seem to have missed the point of their essay. Goldsmith and Woods said China was right that the internet inevitably would be censored and surveilled, not that China’s methods were normatively appealing.

Even discounting existing state surveillance and censorship on the internet in the United States, private surveillance and censorship is ubiquitous. And, notwithstanding our intuitions, most people want an internet that is subject to ubiquitous censorship—that is, “content moderation.”

Putting aside illegal content (child pornography, snuff films, etc.), most consumers do not want to be inundated with what Sarah Jeong has dubbed “ the internet of garbage .” They do not want to be harassed, bullied, threatened, or spammed on the internet. And in the midst of a global pandemic, they want to ensure disinformation is kept to a minimum. They want to limit harmful speech.

Part of our problem is we still think of speech burdens in a binary, on-off way. But especially online, the question is not whether you can find content, it is how hard it will be to be find and how much it will be amplified .

The question is not if there will be censorship and surveillance, [1] the question is who gets to do it, and how it is done. Right now a relatively small group of private actors make not only the substantive decisions about content on the internet, they decide the process that drives those decisions and how information flows through their networks. They wield enormous power , and are almost completely unaccountable to the public.

So, what are our options?

Option 1: Stay the Course

First, the United States could continue to shield tech companies from most tort-based liability for content posted on their platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , maintain an expansive view of the First Amendment, and not substantively regulate tech companies.

Supporters of the current system largely admit that ubiquitous content moderation is good, so long as it is private. They hold that a system of private speech regulation provides a market incentive for platforms to reach a Goldilocks-zone of content moderation : Enough harmful speech is blocked that it is possible to maintain deliberative communication amid the noise, but not so much that deliberative communication is also blocked. Consumers have a choice, and services that fail to moderate will either fail or be consigned to the dark corners of the internet .

But how real is that choice? Alphabet owns the two most popular websites in the world. Facebook (through its eponymous service and Instagram), Twitter, and Reddit collectively dominate U.S. social media . Over the past twenty years who has rivaled them? MySpace? Snapchat? Yahoo!? Tumblr? Even including these rivals, American consumers have had two significant options for their search engines and four or five social media sites. And, at least in part, that lack of choice is due to the inaction by antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice when Google bought YouTube and when Facebook acquired Instagram . In a monopolistic environment consumers can try to campaign for changes to private companies’ policies, but their effectiveness might rely on some of the substantive regulations discussed below.

As Evelyn Douek has argued, these platforms are increasingly cooperative in their moderation decision-making , making consumer choice even more illusory. YouTube’s policies on terrorism-related content are not significantly different than Facebook’s or Twitter’s because they all belong to the same private group that develops those standards. Facebook’s new Oversight Board is probably a step in the right direction, but what happens if it becomes the de facto decision-maker for social media standards generally?

Finally, the market theory is contingent on the assumption that people choose their networks based on the ability of the network to curate information. But the profit incentive of social media companies is to increase our engagement—which might mean pushing harmful content on users , or at least enabling that sort of thing ( until they’re caught ). The negative effects of this content might be exaggerated , but without greater transparency we just don’t know.

Aside from the harms of disinformation, staying the course has the additional drawback of eliminating the United States from the global conversation about internet governance. As Microsoft President Brad Smith mentioned in a recent interview , in the future, tech companies may simply adapt their products to the regulations of the European Union and other Western democracies that lack stringent First Amendment or Section 230 protections against government involvement in online speech. We already see this to some extent with the NetzDG law in Germany, which, if nothing else, is offering us some useful transparency on content moderation.

Or tech companies themselves might simply decide how public health crises are managed .

Either way, the United States government, for better or worse, will simply not have much of a say in what the internet looks like.

Option 2: Content-Based Regulations

For constitutional reasons, the approach of regulating speech based on its content is closed off to the United States. There is a lively academic debate about the status of lies and hate speech under the First Amendment. But absent a political revolution, it will remain an academic debate. The Supreme Court has said, in an 8-1 opinion , it will not open up new “uncovered” zones of speech. Content-based regulations of harmful speech will continue to be subject to strict scrutiny, and they will continue to be struck down.

In the U.S. context, at least for the foreseeable future, content-based censorship will continue to be ubiquitous and limited to private actors. That does not mean we need to leave the speech moderating apparatus entirely to the private sector.

Option 3: Torts, Competition, Process, and Friction

Contrary to cyber-libertarians, the options available are not limited to “censorship” or no regulation at all. We have other tools at our disposal. The key is to focus on content-neutral regulations, especially those that govern the flow of information rather than regulations that criminalize certain content.

As a threshold matter, these policies do not have to—and likely will not—take the form of flat bans and mandates. They might be conditions attached to liability immunities or tax incentives, and they can—and should—distinguish between different types of online services. Of course, companies have been lobbied, and should be lobbied, to make these changes on their own; I am arguing that there is some role for direct government regulation in these realms.

First, we could reform Section 230. While supporters maintain that Section 230 is necessary to ensure that platforms can engage in decent moderation without fear of liability , detractors argue that a well-crafted alternative could still shield sites that engage in good-faith moderation without shielding sites that are designed to facilitate human trafficking , for instance. And regardless of where you stand on the 230 debate, given bipartisan support for both SESTA – FOSTA and the delayed “ EARN IT Act ,” 230 as we know it is unlikely to survive. If we want sensible intermediary liability protection, and not a patchwork of exceptions that probably make the internet less safe, the 230-or-nothing stance is increasingly politically untenable.

Second, we can advocate for regulations that promote competition, creating a market where consumers have real choices and their choices make a difference. This need not be the traditional “breaking up” of companies given the beneficial network effects consumers find in centralized services and the possible aggravation of harm that a balkanized internet could bring . Pro-competition policy could start with blocking the sale of startups to Facebook and Google . It could include the imposition of substantive requirements, like an information fiduciary responsibility or interoperability requirement on organizations with a certain share of the market. Any regulations, however, need to be sensitive to the needs of non-profits with large user bases and low revenues .

Third, and more controversially, we can require more transparent processes in content moderation. A number of organizations have released and advocated for the “ Santa Clara Principles .” These include, at a minimum, publishing the number of posts and accounts taken down organized by the category of violation, providing notice to users whose accounts or posts are taken down, and instituting some kind of appeal process. If content-based moderation decisions are largely going to be done by private actors, their legitimacy relies on being transparent and understandable to the public. Even if changes are brought about by private pressure, we cannot collectively criticize and improve on secret processes .

Finally, and most controversially, maybe we can impose content-neutral, friction-creating regulations that force consumers to be more deliberate in sharing and consuming information. For instance, WhatsApp recently limited its forwarding function so that any messages that come from a chain of more than five people must be forwarded one chat at a time. This type of rule is not content-based; it applies to speech based on its virality, not the “topic, idea or message” communicated. Disclosure requirements—revealing, for example, whether or not a human is speaking —might also increase friction and deliberation. And some regulations of social media’s “frictionless” design might be allowable under the First Amendment.

These regulations avoid the hard epistemological questions and constitutional hurdles of defining harmful speech. They regulate the flow of information regardless of its content instead of worrying about speech concerning a particular topic. Furthermore, they ban no speech—deliberate communication is unaffected.

There are pros and cons to every policy mentioned, with administrability challenges and constitutional issues . But to reach a substantive discussion of the realistic possibilities for regulation in the U.S. context, the conversation needs to move beyond the false binary of “censorship versus free speech.”

* Ben Horton is a rising 3L at Harvard Law School and an Online Editor for HLPR.

[1] I am not talking about the problems of surveillance presented by innovations like the Ring doorbell , or facial recognition . I am referring to the level of surveillance necessary to ensure that speech is successfully moderated on platforms—being able to tie punishments to certain accounts, for example. That overlaps with the problems of online behavioral manipulation and surveillance capitalism, which I am not addressing in this post.

Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 08 May 2020
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Md Nurul Momen 4  

278 Accesses

Freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and impart information without restrictions by state authorities.

Introduction

Internet is regarded as an important issue that shapes free expression in today’s volatile nature of human rights world (Momen 2020 ). In the digital age, authoritarian governments in the world always attempt to undermine political and social movement through the complete shutdown of the Internet or providing partial access to it. It is also found that the restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are through surveillance and monitoring the online activities. In response to any kind of political and social movement, authoritarian governments across the border occasionally shut down many websites, along with the arrest of several anti-government bloggers and political activists. However, under the international legal instruments, for instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), denial of the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ariffin, L. J. (2012). Rais backs Dr M call for curbs to Internet freedom . https://www.malaysia-today.net/2012/06/05/rais-backs-dr-m-call-for-curbs-to-internet-freedom/ . Accessed 10 June 2018.

Arnaudo, D., Alva, A., Wood, P., & Whittington, J. (2013). Political and economic implications of authoritarian control of the internet. In J. Butts & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Critical infrastructure protection VII (IFIP AICT) (Vol. 417, pp. 3–19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Cristiano, F. (2019). Internet access as human right: A dystopian critique from the occupied Palestinian territory. In G. Blouin-Genest, M. C. Doran, & S. Paquerot (Eds.), Human rights as battlefields (Human rights interventions). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91770-2_12 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21 (3), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0190 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Freedom House. (2019). Freedom on the Net . Washington DC/New York, Retrieved from https://www.freedomonthenet.org/countries-in-detail

Hill, D. T. (2002). East Timor and the Internet: Global political leverage in/on Indonesia. Indonesia, 73 , 25–51.

Kee, J. S. (2012). Bad laws won’t stop cyber crime . https://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/28/bad-laws-stop-cyber-crime/?doing_wp_cron . Accessed 10 June 2019.

Momen, M. N. (2020). Myth and reality of freedom of expression on the Internet. International Journal of Public Administration, 43 (3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1628055 .

Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global Internet governance. International Affairs, 91 (1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12189 .

Randall, J. (1996). Of cracks and crackdown: Five translations of recent Internet postings. Indonesia, 62 , 37–51.

Rodan, G. (1998). The Internet and political control in Singapore. Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1), 63–89.

Shirokanova, A., & Silyutina, O. (2018). Internet regulation: A text-based approach to media coverage. In D. A. Alexandrov et al. (Eds.), Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS) 2018 (Communications in computer and information science (CCIS)) (Vol. 858, pp. 181–194). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_15 .

Ziccardi, G. (2013). Digital activism, internet control, transparency, censorship, surveillance and human rights: An international perspective. In Resistance, liberation technology and human rights in the digital age (Law, governance and technology series) (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md Nurul Momen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Nurul Momen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Alberta, Alberta, AB, Canada

Scott Romaniuk

University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

Manish Thapa

Nemzetkozi Tanulmanyok Intezet, Rm 503, Corvinus Univ, Inst of Intl Studies, Budapest, Hungary

Péter Marton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Momen, M.N. (2019). Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship. In: Romaniuk, S., Thapa, M., Marton, P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Received : 15 March 2018

Accepted : 29 June 2019

Published : 08 May 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

John Brown University's Student Newspaper

Averting our eyes: The controversy of internet censorship

Pornography. Extremism. Fake News. Few words have as visceral an effect on a person as these. Together, these three items embody almost everything that is wrong in American society. And how has the government responded to their increase? By inviting them in as guests of honor through internet servers around the country.

Since its inception, the internet has been a nearly universal hub of information and activity. Everything from debates, auctions and photo albums is shared across the web in plain view of the public. Unfortunately, the internet contains much more sinister files than these. Pornography, drug deals and explicit content are all only a few clicks away from anyone with access to a computer. In this age, parents are forced to protect the eyes of their children from graphic content and sexual innuendos from the moment they touch their first device. Sexual addictions and crime rates across the country are on the rise and the vulgarity of the internet bears the brunt of the blame.

For years there has been an ongoing argument regarding the subject of internet censorship. Many groups claim that any content that someone desires to put on the web should be allowed to be posted. Others staunchly believe that the internet has become too explicit and harmful to be allowed to continue unchecked.

I believe that there is a difference between the restriction of useful information that can be applied and evaluated freely by consumers and the restriction of material that has little to no positive application. To be clear, I don’t believe that the internet needs to be dismantled. It is a wonderful tool with limitless potential for the improvement of mankind. But, I also believe that it is a tool that can easily be misused. Evil was not born on the day the internet was created, but it was given a new foster home. In the days of newspapers and encyclopedias, evil things were still captured and mass-produced but not on the scale that the internet allows them to be.

Much of the content on the internet including pornographic websites fall within that category of harmful material. These are things that have no potential to improve society and serve as a stumbling block to many who are exposed to them. We are becoming a culture that is more addicted, sexualized and uncaring than we ever have been before, and it is happening at a younger age than we have previously seen. Left unchecked, this exposure could lead to a dramatic shift in the moral values of American youth. When exposure to explicit content becomes normalized, other more socially unacceptable acts become more acceptable. Several scholars and studies have made the connection between rape acceptance and pornography exposure. Pornography is not simply images or videos; it is the breeding place of complacency and acceptance of heinous acts.

Another more controversial item needing censorship from the internet is websites and forums that foster extreme or criminal opinions. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime published a document that records multiple examples of how the internet has been used to foster terrorism across the globe. One of the main ways these groups use the internet to reach people is through propaganda, including messages, videos or games that intended to sway people to a more extreme mindset.

This topic becomes startling when we realize that none of this is actually prohibited. The UNODC states that “the dissemination of propaganda is generally not, in and of itself, a prohibited activity.” How is this not illegal? Criminal groups are embedding dangerous messages into the internet, and there is nothing the law can do to stop them.

The final commonality on the internet that needs to be regulated is fake news. As internet users, we are practically drowned in a flood of news. I understand that storylines will differ based on the perspective from which they are told, but an issue arises when two stories become irreconcilable. We are correct to assume that a narrative contains multiple storylines, but those lines should not contradict each other.

Somehow, individuals and news outlets manage to transform a single-threaded story into a web of self-contradiction and fallacy. Often, only a select few of those accounts are reasonably factual, leaving the rest as pure fiction, written to incite an emotional response in undiscerning people. It has become increasingly difficult to find cultural common ground with people around us because of the sheer quantity of fallacies we are fed. Humanity requires a standard to be set for news on the internet if groups are to begin to fix bridges and restore broken relationships.

But my viewpoint is uncommon. As a whole, the general American consensus is that freedom of speech should not be infringed. They cry that the First Amendment protects our freedom and keeps the government from influencing our lives. The American Constitution makes it clear that information should be free for all, and that it cannot be restricted by the government.

There is certainly justification in their fears. Governments should not be allowed to abuse their power to subjugate their citizens by scrubbing the internet. Many people fear what may happen to America if internet censorship is allowed. They fear that their freedom of speech will be infringed upon, and they will not be able to express their doubts and concerns to the public. In the opinion of many, internet censorship is the first step down the road leading to the eventual loss of freedom for Americans. Without freedom, innovation and progress will come to a standstill, leading to the undoing of American society.

The discussion regarding internet censorship is just one example of a larger ongoing debate. The core of this issue lies the question of man’s moral compass. If a man is born good, then there is no need to regulate content on the internet or anywhere else. But if man is inherently evil, regulation is imperative. Without guidance, humanity will slowly fall away from moral rightness, and we will begin to suffer the consequences of our arrogance.

The question also remains, who exists that is good enough to regulate us? Certainly not the government. They are human as well and have shown that they fall victim to the same errors as the public. The regulator would have to be a group with objective goals and moral uprightness. I am not sure if such a group exists. But if humanity has proven anything, it is that we are a people sorely in need of regulation if we are to remain on a path to improvement.

Comments are closed.

Contact The Threefold

Join our team, latest articles.

• JBU’s Newspaper Celebrates Multiple Wins at the ACMA Awards
• Spy vs Spy!
• ‘Fly By Night’ Flew into the Audience’s Hearts
• Decree 95 and the Persecuted Church in Vietnam 
• “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” Rocks the Big Screen

Follow us on Twitter

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Learning objectives.

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library – Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries).” Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

• causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts;
• depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct; and
• lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

• contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions;
• dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and
• is used simply to shock or arouse an audience.

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission).” Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference).” The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).”

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 “Movies” , this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions (Film Reference).” Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).”

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industry’s self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitution or murder civilians (Media Awareness). In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds (Media Awareness).” Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hays Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hays Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

Arts Reformation, “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html .

Case Summaries, “First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ .

Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html .

Film Reference, “Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm .

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Internet Censorship (Part 1): The Technology of the Working Web

Despite the guarantee of free access to information enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the number of countries engaging in some kind of internet censorship continues to grow rapidly around the world. The issue of internet censorship is now central in policy, communication, and technology debates. It has also become of interest to scholars in the humanities and social sciences who think seriously about the relationship between culture, politics, and the internet.

But in order to build a rich conversation about the causes and consequences of internet censorship, we must first understand how internet censorship works, especially on a technical level. This two-part post lays out a (simplified) explanation of internet censorship technologies. The first of these gives a broad overview of how the internet works, while the next post builds on these foundations to explain how various censorship techniques can block information on the internet.

How the Internet Works

To understand how internet censorship works, as well as how to circumvent such obstacles, we must first get a grip on how the internet works. Consider this over-simplified model of just what happens when you view a webpage.

When you log onto the internet at your home, office, school, library or internet café, you are connecting through an Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), such as Comcast or AT&T. The ISP then assigns your individual computer an IP Address, which is similar to a postal address in that it is used to identify you and transport information. Anyone who learns your IP address can find out what city you’re in, and other institutions such as your ISP, internet café, library or business can find out more, such as which building you are in and even which computer you are using. Government agencies, to the extent that they have access to said institutions, may know these details as well.

Your Internet Connection

So, when you type in http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu into your web browser, a series of things happen:

• Your computer sends the domain name "townsendlab.berkeley.edu" to a selected DNS server, which returns a message containing the IP address for the server that hosts the Townsend Humanities Lab (currently, 174.129.208.156).
• The browser then sends a request to your ISP for a connection to that IP address.
• The request goes through a series of routers , each one forwarding a copy of the request to a router closer to the destination, until it reaches a router that finds the specific computer needed.
• The message from the Web site to you travels through other devices (computers or routers). Each such device along a path can be referred to as a " hop "; the number of hops is the number of computers or routers your message comes in contact with along its way and is often between 5 and 30.
• This computer sends information back to you, allowing your browser to send the full URL and receive the data to display the page. Et Voila!

Image Credits: LAN (Main Image) Your Internet Connection DNS "Hops"

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

On Tech: A.I.

Classic internet censorship.

New regulations in Indonesia show that strict online controls are no longer confined to autocratic countries like China.

By Shira Ovide

I want us to consider the implications of this new reality: In three of the four most populous countries in the world, governments have now given themselves the power to order that the internet be wiped of citizens’ posts that the authorities don’t like.

Indonesia — the world’s fourth-most populous country, and a democracy — is in the process of implementing what civil rights organizations say are overly broad regulations to demand removal of online speech that officials consider a disturbance to society or public order. Most major internet companies, including Google, Meta, Netflix, TikTok, Apple and Twitter have effectively agreed to go along with the rules, for now.

Indonesia’s regulations are another sign that strict online controls are no longer confined to autocratic countries like China , Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. They are also increasingly the realm of democracies that want to use the law and the internet to shape citizens’ discussions and beliefs.

In free societies, there has long been a tug of war over free speech and its limits . But one of the enduring questions of the online era is what governments, digital companies and citizens should do now that the internet and social media make it both easier for people to share their truth (or their lies) with the world and more appealing for national leaders to shut it all down.

What is happening in three of the world’s four largest countries — China, India and Indonesia; the U.S. is the 3rd largest — is simpler than that. It fits the classic definition of censorship. Governments are seeking to silence their external critics.

Officials in Indonesia have said that their new regulations are needed to protect people’s privacy, delete online material that promotes child sexual abuse or terrorism, and make the internet a welcoming space to all.

Governments sometimes have legitimate reasons to shape what happens online, such as preventing the spread of dangerous misinformation. But Dhevy Sivaprakasam, Asia Pacific policy counsel for the global digital rights group Access Now, said Indonesia’s rules are a fig leaf used by the government to stifle journalism and citizen protests, with few checks on that power.

The regulations require all sorts of digital companies, including social media sites, digital payment and video game companies and messaging apps to constantly scan for online material that violates the law and pull it down within hours if discovered. Authorities also have the right to request user data, including people’s communications and financial transactions. Companies that fail to comply with the law can be fined or forced to stop operating in the country.

Indonesia’s regulations, which are new and haven’t been applied yet, “raise serious concerns for the rights to freedom of expression, association, information, privacy and security,” Sivaprakasam told me.

Access Now has also called out other sweeping online censorship laws in Asia, including those in Vietnam, Bangladesh and India .

(My colleagues reported today that the Indian government withdrew a proposed bill on data protection that privacy advocates and some lawmakers said would have given authorities excessively broad powers over personal data, while exempting law enforcement agencies and public entities from the law’s provisions.)

It gets more complicated trying to decide what to do about these laws. Companies in technology and other industries tend to say they are required to comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate, but they do push back sometimes , or even pull out of countries such as Russia, arguing that the laws or governments’ interpretations of them violate people’s fundamental freedoms.

Access Now and other rights groups have said that companies should not bow to what they say are violations of international human rights and other norms in Indonesia.

Executives of American internet companies have said privately that the U.S. government should do more to stand up to overly strict government controls over online expression, rather than leave it up to Google, Apple, Meta and Twitter alone. They say American companies should not be put in a position of trying to independently defend citizens of other countries from abuses by their own governments.

There are, of course, much less clear-cut questions of when and whether governments should have a say over what people post. Countries such as Germany and Turkey have state controls over online information, employed in the name of stamping out hateful ideologies or keeping society healthy. Not everyone in those countries agrees that those are reasonable restrictions of the internet, or agrees with how the limits are interpreted or enforced.

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon weigh in on whether the First Amendment permits government authorities to dictate rules of expression on Facebook and other large social media sites, which now make those decisions mostly on their own.

The original, utopian idea of the internet was that it would help tear down national boundaries and give citizens abilities they had never before had to challenge their governments. We saw a version of that, but then governments wanted more control over what happened online. “Governments are very powerful, and they don’t like to be displaced,” Mishi Choudhary, a lawyer who works on the rights of internet users in India, told me last year.

Our challenge, then, is to make room for governments to act in the public interest to shape what happens online when necessary, while calling them out when authorities abuse this right in order to maintain their own power.

Tip of the Week

The art of buying used gadgets

Are you curious about buying a used computer, phone or another device? It’s great to save money and be gentler on the planet — as long as you don’t buy a lemon. Brian X. Chen , the consumer technology columnist for The New York Times, has his own tale of buying used products the smart way.

Recently my wife wanted a new iPad Pro to create illustrations, and maybe send emails occasionally. I grimaced.

The largest version of the tablet costs $1,100. Add an Apple Pencil for on-screen drawing ($130) and a keyboard ($100 or more), and we would have spent $1,330. Instead, I did some legwork and bought everything used. My price was $720. Here’s how I did it.

I started by searching for used iPad Pro devices on eBay. Models released in 2021 were still pricey — $850 or so. The 2020 models were far less. I ended up buying a 2020 12.9-inch iPad Pro with 256 gigabytes for $600. That’s about half the price of a new model with less data storage.

I was careful. I bought an iPad described as being in “good condition” from a seller whose reviews were 100 percent positive. The seller even included a one-year warranty and a 30-day return policy. To my delight, the iPad arrived days later and looked new.

I couldn’t find a good deal on an Apple Pencil on eBay or Craigslist, but I did on Facebook Marketplace. I found a seller who lived near me with five-star reviews. His profile displayed a photo of him with his girlfriend, and he was very polite in our conversation. I felt comfortable. We met during lunchtime in the parking lot of a taqueria, and I paid him $70 through Venmo.

The last step was buying a keyboard. Apple sells its own models, but I opted for one from Logitech. I found one on Amazon listed as in “like-new” condition, meaning the keyboard had been purchased before and returned with an open box. It was $50, compared with $115 for a new one. When the keyboard arrived, it looked pristine and worked perfectly.

The bottom line: There’s an art to buying used. There’s some risk involved, but you can minimize the odds of being ripped off by seeking out online sellers with high ratings, generous return policies and product warranties. And when it comes to in-person transactions, feel for good vibes — and meet in public. The money saved was worth the effort to me.

What you need to know before buying refurbished . (Wirecutter)

How to shop for a used laptop or desktop PC . (Wirecutter)

Should you buy a refurbished phone? (Consumer Reports)

Before we go …

They even compared their military to a losing soccer team: On Chinese social media, many people took the rare step of mocking their government for not taking military action to stop Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. My colleague Li Yuan wrote that the online backlash showed that the nationalism encouraged by the Chinese Communist Party can also be turned against the government.

Buyer beware: People searching for weight loss treatments have plenty of options for telehealth companies. Stat News reported that virtual options can be great, but that experts also worry that some sites can be ineffective or churn out prescriptions purely for profit.

We have feelings about sounds: Twitter’s app now makes swooshing and alien-like sounds when people refresh their feeds. Input Mag explored why sounds are so important in tech and product designs.

Hugs to this

Check out this hungry goat that’s doing good work annihilating invasive plants . (I’ve shared videos of the goat herd in New York’s Riverside Park before, but I can’t get enough of them.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at [email protected].

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here . You can also read past On Tech columns .

Shira Ovide writes the On Tech newsletter, a guide to how technology is reshaping our lives and world. More about Shira Ovide

13 Internet Censorship Pros and Cons

Internet censorship is the ability to restrict specific websites or online content from being viewed. It may come in the form of an edit, regulation, or law issued by the government. It could also occur privately is an ISP objects to the content that certain individuals wish to view.

The advantage of allowing internet censorship is that content which is violent, obscene, or dangerous can be immediately blocked. This protects children from inadvertently viewing content that could be scary or harmful to them, such as the murder and decapitation videos which have made their way to sites like Facebook and Twitter in recent years.

The disadvantage is obvious: internet censorship is a restriction on a person’s ability to view the content they wish to see, when they wish to see it.

Here are some additional internet censorship pros and cons to discuss.

What Are the Pros of Internet Censorship?

1. It creates the chance to set common sense limits. There are some things that just aren’t part of what a society would deem to be healthy. A simple search right now on an unfiltered public search can provide anyone with access to numerous videos that purport to show real murders in progress. High-profile cases, such as the murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, were broadcast on-air and then a first-person video of the event made its way through social circles afterwards. Restricting this content sets a common-sense limit on the content that van be viewed.

2. It limits access to harmful activities. 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. By restricting content that can be accessed, it limits the opportunities that predators can create to reach out to find new victims.

3. It could lessen the impact of identity theft. One of the fastest growing crimes in the world today is identity theft. NBC News reports that more US citizens were victims of identity theft in 2016 than any year before. 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.

4. It may provide a positive impact on national security. Although hacking will occur no matter what internet censorship laws may be in place, 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.

5. It stops fake news. Claims of fake news increased dramatically in 2017. Fake news websites promote false reports for money through clicks because readers think the news is real. Internet censorship would provide another level of discernment which could possibly stop divisive incidents that are based on events that never occurred.

What Are the Cons of Internet Censorship?

1. Who watches the watchers? Even if internet censorship is directly supervised and ethically maintained, someone somewhere is deciding on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for society to see online. At some level, someone does not have anyone to whom they report regarding their censorship decisions. With that kind of power, one individual could influence society in whatever way they chose without consequence.

2. It stops information. Although fake information can be restricted through internet censorship, so can real information. According to the World Economic Forum, 27% of all internet users live in a country where someone has been arrested for content that they have shared, published, or simply liked on Facebook. 38 different countries made arrests based solely on social media posts in 2016.

3. It is a costly process. According to 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.

4. It provides a negative economic impact. What happens if a business has their website blocked because it doesn’t meet an arbitrary standard of “goodness”? 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.

5. It shifts where responsibilities lie. 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. Once that control is ceded, it becomes easier to cede more control over responsibility because the action was normalized.

6. It prevents individuals from accessing a freedom of expression. A free internet allows individuals to post what they want. It gives them the chance to freely express their thoughts, opinions, and views. Laws may already exist in many jurisdictions that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who share illegal content already, such as child pornography, so placing additional restrictions would simply create another layer of bureaucracy.

7. A lack of truth leads to ignorance. In 1984 by George Orwell, people in this dystopian environment are kept under tight control so that specific societal results can occur. Once people in this society begin to discover love, they discover truth. That truth prevents them from living in ignorance. 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.

8. It limits entrepreneurial opportunities. 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. Such an action would limit innovation in many sectors.

These internet censorship pros and cons show us that what can be used for good can also be used for selfish intent. Who do you think should determine if content is inappropriate? Should it be a government, an oversight committee, or yourself?

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Censorship — The Importance of Censorship in Today’s World

Advantages and Disadvantages of Censorship in Today’s World

• Categories: Censorship Freedom of Expression Modern Society

About this sample

Words: 2738 |

14 min read

Published: Nov 26, 2019

Words: 2738 | Pages: 6 | 14 min read

Works Cited

• Mette, N. (n.d.). The History of Censorship. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/1015/the-history-of-censorship/
• Palfrey, J. (2016). A Short History of Internet Regulation. In A. Sokolova, J. Kulesza, R. Maguire, & F. Dignum (Eds.), Social Informatics (pp. 15-26). Springer International Publishing.
• Mackinnon, R. (2012). The Dictator’s Dilemma: The Internet, Dictatorships, and the Prospects for Democratization. Journal of Democracy, 23(2), 63-76.
• OpenNet Initiative. (n.d.). Internet Censorship and Surveillance by Country. Retrieved from https://opennet.net/research/
• Karnadi, E. B. (2019). Censorship, Crime, and Corruption: An Empirical Study of Internet Regulation and Crime Rate in Asia. In P. Bui & H. L. Yang (Eds.), Governance and Sustainability in Asia (pp. 41-61). Springer.
• Chang, E. C., & Chu, Y.-H. (2011). Internet Censorship and Regulation Systems in Democracies: Comparative Analysis of South Korea and Taiwan. The Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(3), 321-338.
• Johnson, I. (2016). Media Censorship in China. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
• United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
• Holt, K. (2012). Internet Censorship: A Comparative Analysis. Canadian Journal of Law & Technology, 10(1), 153-179.
• Wu, Y. (2017). Censorship, Not a Solution: An Analysis of Internet Filtering in China. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 46(3), 3-30.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 570 words

1 pages / 408 words

3 pages / 1296 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Censorship

Censorship is a practice that has been used across many governmental systems throughout history. In the novel Fahrenheit 451, author Ray Bradbury explores the latent damages that arise when censorship is placed upon a society. [...]

Ray Bradbury paints a haunting picture of a society consumed by mindless entertainment, where books are banned and intellectual curiosity is stifled. Through his vivid portrayal of this futuristic world, Bradbury raises [...]

In conclusion, Fahrenheit 451 is a thought-provoking novel that explores the themes of censorship, the dangers of technology, and the importance of intellectual freedom. Through its cautionary tale, Ray Bradbury invites us to [...]

However, there has been a long-standing debate about whether certain books should be banned from public spaces, schools, and libraries due to their content. While it is important to acknowledge that some material may be [...]

“Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” This line, delivered in George Orwell’s sinister book, 1984, exemplifies a totalitarian government censoring information, [...]

While some argue that censorship can protect society from harmful ideas, Fahrenheit 451 presents a counterargument that censorship can create a society that is intellectually stagnant and vulnerable to manipulation. By [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample

Internet censorship: essay introduction, internet censorship: essay body, internet censorship: essay conclusion.

Technological advancement in the world has made many people adopt the use of computers and internet in their daily lives; this is due to the ease of carrying out tasks enabled by computer technology. Many people have transformed their houses into work stations since they can communicate with their colleagues through internet about their daily duties.

This means that communication has been enhanced, and a lot of information can be sought and transferred through internet (Zacks, 2002). However, there have been negative implications in the society as people have changed their behaviors due to the influence of internet materials. Westernization has been enhanced by the increased use of internet in the world, and this has brought a lot of conflicts in many countries.

Many governments have taken various measures to ensure that they monitor information that is made available to their citizens. This has been found necessary, since any user of a computer can access information from internet regardless of their age.

For instance, one of the greatest dangers is that children can easily access pornographic materials from the internet. This adversely affected their behavior leading to early exposure to sexual contents. In addition, many people end up abusing drugs due to the influence of internet users and prohibited materials available in the internet.

Measures put in place by governments to ensure that only ethically accepted materials are available for viewers include supervision of children by parents and teachers. This means that teachers and parents should ensure that they monitor what their children do on the internet (Wilson, 2008).

This may include being with them all the time they have access to the internet or guiding them on what they must access from the internet. This is extremely hard since parents and teachers do not have enough time to observe each child.

In fact, children may at times sneak to internet sites when they notice that their guardians cannot see what they are doing. The government may also liaise with internet providers to make use of content filters. This means that only information that is universally accepted within such states will be available on internet search engines.

Governments have come up with regulations to govern the usage of internet in their respective states. For example, the Australian Communications and Media Authority have a lot of powers regarding control of contents within Australia. This body instills restrictions on websites that contain contents considered to be harmful or unethical for the Australian community (Levin, 2010).

The government has empowered this body to blacklist all websites that may contain unethical contents such as pornography. In case ACMA notices existence of prohibited contents circulating in the internet, they work with law enforcing agencies to ensure that those involved are punished.

There is a vast number of contents being posted on the internet every day, therefore, ACMA has the principle role of vetting all websites and advising the government on contents that need reviewing. If the agency does not raise any complaint, then no measures are taken and the content is believed to be ethical and not contradicting the set rules in Australia (Wilson, 2008).

Those who supported government legislations to censor internet information insisted that the internet was meant for creation and sending information hence enabling communication. For instance, Jim Wallace argued that the internet was not invented to be free for everyone.

He believed that the internet was meant to share research information hence there was no problem with censoring websites. Therefore, internet was not only meant to provide information to people hence supporting the government’s directives to censor websites (Gorman, 2005).

Some of the materials being prohibited by law are suicide related contents. This means that it is illegal to post contents that may influence people’s decision to commit suicide or cause physical harm to others or to themselves. In Australia, there is an act to prohibit exposure of such materials.

In addition, there are other legislations put in place to protect information against piracy also known as copyright protection acts. There were a lot of opponents of these filters since some people believed that it was out of order to ban using certain contents to homes (Gorman, 2005).

Families that have adults only were denied access to materials that are suitable for an adult but are not suitable for children. In fact, exceptionally pertinent information may be filtered hence denying its access by parents. For instance, some contents that contain information regarding parenthood may be filtered since the ACMA believes that they are not appropriate for children.

In fact, censoring of online information has been seen as a threat to freedom of speech. Activists believe that by censoring protected speech on the internet government makes adults see and hear materials that the are only suitable for children (Levin, 2010).

This has created an uphill task for many governments to ensure that they control what is exposed to the public through the internet. Despite all those conflicting situations, many governments have been able to achieve their intended goals in censoring online information.

There have been protests from social groups demanding that web filters be removed in schools since they block a lot of useful information. Protestors argue that web filters are unconstitutionally blocking websites which include useful resources regarding bullying and gay-straight alliances in America. In fact, hiding this information from school children does not help in curbing the social crime.

These websites should be allowed in schools since students can learn from experiences hence avoiding such behaviors in future (Ebbs and Rheingold, 1994). For instance, if there is a website detailing how students were bullied and its implications on their education, chances are high that in future students will try to avoid bullying others.

Information about gay-straight alliances should be made available to everyone so that they can evaluate and decide for themselves on which side they should stay. By censoring websites that give details on these alliances, school children are denied vital information that may help them make wise decisions in life.

Suzanne Dvorak who is children rights activist argued that prohibiting freedom of speech cannot prevent exploitation of children. She argued that some filtered information may be considered for children. Instead, she argues that parents should be allowed to monitor and expose their children to all information that they feel is worth.

Censoring internet information leads to blocking legitimate and legal contents. This means that agencies set by governments to advice on information to be censored use their own set standards to prohibit materials on the internet. In fact, all stakeholders should be involved to ensure that useful information is not censored.

For instance, parents should be consulted to give directions on the extent to which information should be barred from circulation. This will help to avoid conflicts when parents feel that some information, which is vital for growth of their children has been censored. Therefore, governments should carry out extensive research among internet users to ensure that they do not prohibit information useful to some people.

Personal interests also influence censoring of websites hence bring the credibility of trusted agencies into question. For instance, in Australia a document leaked to the public exposing secret blacklist from the ACMA in the year 2010. It showed that most of the listed websites did not contain contents relating to child pornography.

This means that the credibility of bodies that observe online contents may be tainted hence prohibiting websites that are not harmful to the society. This ends up being dangerous since people may be denied legitimate information that can contribute to the nation building.

Internet censuring rarely achieves its set goals. This is due to the fact that websites keep on changing every day with many others being created. In fact, websites can be created with names that do not raise suspicion of its contents.

Therefore, its target users can know how to tell their friends about the new website hence accessing prohibited materials without knowledge of regulating bodies. It is also known that child pornography is not distributed through websites. Instead, those supporting the crime distribute illicit contents through various internet tools that are hard to monitor or censor.

These tools include chat rooms and instant messaging. These are internet tools where people communicate with each other without involving others. Since privacy is enhanced, the government finds it exceedingly hard to monitor and control what people exchange in chat rooms (Gorman, 2005). Filters do not cover Usenet groups and social networks hence people use them to exchange materials that are abusive in public websites.

Governments try their best to censor websites, but the intended objective is not achieved since they fail to filter other internet tools. Achievement of set goals is also hindered by the fact that monitoring websites that experience high traffics stops the website from working.

This is the reason why censoring contents on YouTube has been impossible in many parts of the world. In addition, governments have been unable to monitor proxy servers hence enabling anybody with knowhow in computer information to bypass blocking systems hence accessing all information.

These include information technology specialists who understand functioning of filters hence creating bypasses to ensure that they can access unfiltered information (Andrew, 2010). Finally, X-rated materials which are fit for adults are not censored hence these materials find their way to children’s view.

This happens because parents determine what they can show to their children and some may not mind exposing their children to X-rated materials. Cybercrimes are also prevalent through other internet tools that are not censored, and this proves that efforts by governments to censor websites cannot achieve all its set goals and objectives.

Many have argued that filters themselves are flawed. This means that filters cannot be trusted with censoring all information on the internet. In fact, filters block 7.8% of legitimate websites and allow 13% of materials that are supposed to be inaccessible. This means that internet filters cannot be effective for censoring all information that has to be prohibited from the public (Andrew, 2010).

These are some challenges that governments face in censoring information because some sneak to the public. This means that measures have to be put in place if the government has to censor all intended information. In fact, they should try to develop laws that can work alongside filters to ensure that information that bypasses filters does not affect the public.

Internet censoring lulls parents into a sense of security for their children, which may be false. This means that parents may assume that their children are safe from any immoral material on the internet (Zacks, 2002). Children end up accessing a lot of information which should be inaccessible to them since their parents are less vigilant as they believe in filters (Hosein, 2007).

This may adversely affect growth in children as they may acquire immoral behaviors such as drug abuse and crime. Parents should guide their children on how to use internet for the right purpose only. They should monitor what is right for their children and control it to ensure that only what is healthy for children growth is accessed.

They should not trust filters proposed by governments since they are fraudulent, and in case their children get access to materials such as child pornography, the direct impact would be felt by parents and not the government (Al-Saggaf, Himma and Kharabsheh, 2008).

In addition, parents should try to use home based filters which may be more effective. This is where parents identify websites that they want to be accessed by their children. This can be more effective than the government filters because parents are going to set up a filter system for their homes. Parents should allow all websites that they think contain useful materials for their children.

Internet censorship is aimed at ensuring that information that is believed to be harmful to the society is restricted from being displayed to the public. Many governments in the world are making laws aimed at controlling internet usage. For instance, any information that may influence the society negatively is censored from public access.

These include websites that display children pornography and information regarding terrorism (Ebbs and Rheingold, 1994). Various measures have been put in place to curb the vice and protect children and society as a whole. Some of the measures put in place by governments are internet filters that identify and block websites that are believed to contain illegal information.

Governments have entered into agreements with internet providers to ensure that they block some websites. This has been aimed at ensuring that what is available for users is only what is allowed by the government and service providers.

On the other hand, internet censorship has been faced by stiff opposition from human rights activists who believe that it is unconstitutional. Activists argue that freedom of speech is being violated when websites are blocked. In fact, many people opposed filters imposed by governments on internet usage (Hosein, 2007).

They cite various reasons some of which are genuine while others are not. For instance, it is hugely essential for parents to ensure that they control what their children access in the internet since filters cannot be fully reliable.

Therefore, internet censorship should be done carefully to ensure that useful information is not censored. On the other hand, measures should be put in place to ensure that information that is unacceptable is not accessed by the public. All stakeholders in the society should work hand in hand to ensure that only reliable information is available to children and the general public.

Al-Saggaf, Y., Himma, E. K. & Kharabsheh, R. (2008). Political online communities in Saudi Arabia: the major players. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society , 6 (2), 127 – 140

Andrew, A. M. (2010), Internet freedom, Kybernetes, Vol. 39(7), 1097 – 1099

Ebbs, G., & Rheingold, H. (1994). Information Management & Computer Security. Emerald , 2 (4), 30-31.

Gorman, G. E. (2005), China-bashing in the internet censorship wars, Online Information Review , 29 (5), 453 – 456.

Hosein, G. (2007) They know where you are. Index on censorship , 4 (2), 132-136

Levin, J. (2010). Internet Censorship: The Debate Rages On, Screen Education , 59 (4), 46-51.

Wilson, M. (2008), Censorship, new technology and libraries, The Electronic Library , 26 (5) 695 – 701

Zacks, M. (2002). U.S. plans office to fight internet censorship. IEEE Internet Computing , 6 (6), 8-9.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 9). Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample. https://studycorgi.com/necessity-of-internet-censorship/

"Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample." StudyCorgi , 9 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/necessity-of-internet-censorship/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample'. 9 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/necessity-of-internet-censorship/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/necessity-of-internet-censorship/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/necessity-of-internet-censorship/.

This paper, “Necessity of Internet Censorship: Essay Sample”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 21, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Essay on Censorship On The Internet

Students are often asked to write an essay on Censorship On The Internet in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Censorship On The Internet

What is internet censorship.

Internet censorship is when someone, like a government or company, controls what people can see or do online. They might block websites or stop certain words from being seen. This is like having a librarian who only lets you read certain books.

Why Do People Censor the Internet?

Some censor the web to protect people, like keeping children from seeing bad things. Others might do it to stop people from learning about or sharing ideas that could cause trouble or change how things are run in a country.

Types of Censorship

Censorship can be hiding parts of the internet or completely blocking it. Sometimes, it’s just for a short time, like during an election or a big protest, to control what information gets out.

Effects of Censorship

Censorship can keep people safe, but it can also stop them from learning and sharing ideas. It can make it hard for people to understand what’s really happening in the world and to make good choices for themselves.

Debating Censorship

Some people think censorship is good because it keeps harmful content away. Others believe it’s bad because it limits freedom. It’s a big topic that affects everyone who uses the internet.

250 Words Essay on Censorship On The Internet

Internet censorship is when someone in power controls what we can see or share online. This can be done by governments, companies, or even schools. They block websites or content that they don’t want people to see. Imagine a librarian deciding which books you can’t read; it’s similar with the internet.

Why Do They Censor?

Leaders or groups might censor the internet to keep people safe or to follow the law. For example, they might block violent videos or stop people from sharing secrets that could hurt a country. Sometimes, they also stop people from talking bad about them or sharing ideas that are different from their own.

Is Censorship Good or Bad?

Censorship can be helpful sometimes, like keeping kids away from bad content. But it can also be bad when it stops people from sharing their thoughts or learning new things. When only certain ideas are allowed, it’s hard for people to think freely and make their own choices.

What Can We Do?

It’s important to know about censorship so we can talk about it and understand our rights online. We should learn how to use the internet responsibly and also stand up for the freedom to share ideas. By doing this, we can help make sure the internet stays a place where everyone can learn and speak freely.

500 Words Essay on Censorship On The Internet

What is censorship on the internet.

Censorship on the internet means when someone, like a government or a company, decides to control what people can see or share online. They might block websites, delete certain posts, or even stop people from talking about specific topics. It’s like when your parents decide which movies are okay for you to watch and which ones are not.

There are many reasons why someone might want to control the internet. Some governments do it to stop people from seeing bad things like violence or to keep them from learning about ideas that could cause trouble. Companies might do it to keep their website safe or to make sure people follow their rules. Sometimes, it’s done to stop lies or harmful information from spreading.

The Good Side of Censorship

Censorship can sometimes be helpful. For example, it can protect young people from seeing things that are not suitable for them, like scary or adult content. It can also stop people from sharing other people’s private information or from bullying others online. When used in the right way, censorship can help make the internet a safer place for everyone.

The Bad Side of Censorship

But censorship can also be a problem. It can stop people from sharing their thoughts and ideas, which is important for freedom and for learning new things. If a government censors too much, people might not be able to find out about important events or express their opinions. This can make it hard for people to make good choices or to change things that are not fair.

How Does Censorship Affect You?

Censorship on the internet can affect what you learn and talk about. It might mean you can’t access certain websites for homework or that you can’t watch videos from other countries. Sometimes, it can even mean that you won’t hear about big events until much later, if at all. It’s important to know about censorship because it can change how you see the world.

What Can We Do About It?

There are ways to deal with censorship. People can speak up about it and ask for more freedom online. They can also use special tools to get around censorship and find the information they need. But it’s also important to understand why some things are censored and to think about whether it’s being done to protect people or to control them.

In conclusion, censorship on the internet is a tricky thing. It can keep us safe but also stop us from learning and sharing. By understanding what it is and how it works, we can make sure that we use the internet in the best way possible and stand up for our right to learn and share freely.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Censorship Of Art And Artists
• Essay on Censorship In Social Media
• Essay on Cellphone Usage While Driving

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary? Essay

One of the greatest achievements of the contemporary democratic society is the freedom of speech. In America, freedom of speech is considered to be one of the most cherished values. Every American citizen has the right to express his opinions and ideas. The basis for freedom of speech in America comes from the First Amendment, which declares that no law, which abridges freedom of speech, can be adopted by Congress. The fundamental principle of the American system is the idea of free and open exchanging of thoughts, which enables to find truth and explode lie.

At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish freedom of speech and a persons ability to speak whatever he wants. The freedom of speech is not total. This fact is used by those who consider freedom of speech to be a myth in America. Indeed, they have certain reasons for it because the First Amendment talks only about Congress, but nothing is said about other branches of power. However, it is necessary to realize in what cases the government has the right to abridge the freedom of self-expression. This restriction is intended to avoid actions that would harm others, that can cause damage to private property, or even to the health of citizens. For instance, the government within reasonable limits may put restrictions on demonstrations of protest in living districts, in order to assure public safety.

Side by side with the freedom of speech, there exists such notion as censorship. Sometimes the restrictions, which are made for censorship reasons, are considered to be free speech restrictions or restrictions of freedom of expression. My strong belief is, these things have nothing in common, and it is necessary to make a clear distinction between them.

The recent terrible events, which have taken place in France, are confirmation for this. It goes without saying, that there is no excuse for those, who have carried out such terrorist acts. Human life is the highest value and no one, whatever the reasons are, has a right to take it away. However, I think that the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, which are considered to give rise to this tragedy, are far from being politically correct. In my opinion, such vulgar drawings, that insult the religious feelings of citizens, that cause ethnic hostility, must be censored, especially in such complicated and multinational countries as France. To my mind, the French government, which has not responded in an appropriate manner to this threat, bears to a certain extent responsible for this tragedy.

Politicians, regardless of their views and confessions, are responsible for their country. On the one hand, like any citizen, they have the right to freedom of speech. On the other hand, they should try to foresee the possible events, and always be politically correct. A phrase, which is said under the influence of emotions, may cause serious consequences. At the same time, in the government of any country, there are political figures who always express their views, regardless of subsequences. It is difficult to say whether they are right or not. To my mind, we have to elect politicians not for their words, but for their actions. In the modern world, our political views are highly dependent on mass media, and I think that such vital questions, as the problems of the foreign policy of the state should be discussed in public.

In general, the problem of free speech is rather complicated, and I think every person understands it in his own way.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 24). Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary? https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-speech-is-censorship-necessary/

"Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary?" IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-speech-is-censorship-necessary/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary'. 24 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary?" January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-speech-is-censorship-necessary/.

1. IvyPanda . "Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary?" January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-speech-is-censorship-necessary/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary?" January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-speech-is-censorship-necessary/.

• Should Censorship Laws Be Applied to the Internet?
• Twitter and Violations of Freedom of Speech and Censorship
• Music Censorship in the United States
• Ethics: It May Not Work in Politics
• Can Mexico Fix Its Image Problem: Article Analysis
• How Important Is Politics and Power to Children’s Lives?
• International Political Scene: Globalization and Peace Relations
• Socialism and Liberalism Comparison