Members of ECTalk get vocal when asked for information on Internet censorship and freedom of speech.
IH begins by asking the group:
"I was just wondering if anyone has any interesting facts and/or figures about the trend of censorship on the Internet. I am a firm believer that Internet censorship is a bad thing (except in well-defined cases — those that are totally illegal).
However, I have been asked to defend my position on this, so I wanted to get a few opinions, and any new Internet-censoring software. I would like to hear from anyone that is involved in any companies producing this sort of software in Ireland.
Any opinion listened to!"
ADG responds:
"I think the key is how you define censorship. If I own a press and choose not to print something because I disagree with it, is that censorship? How about if I want a book removed from a library? How about if I want the limited library budget spent on acquiring some books to the exclusion of others?
On the Web, every site owner has his own press. Matt Drudge effectively can't be censored. I'm not sure you could find a case of censorship on the Web (except explicitly illegal material, like kiddie porn).
I can post pretty much whatever I want to my own site, but it doesn't mean anyone will come by and read it. It's like the alternative paper in college. Sure, they get to say whatever they want, but does anyone care enough to open/read it?
There is/can be censorship on the receiving end when schools and libraries employ filters to keep particular content off their own servers and off the screens of their patrons. When the medium is a funnel (like radio or TV, with limited bandwidth available), censorship can be a problem. However, when the medium is infinite, then I don't really see how that applies. Then the only censorship you face is censorship of attention span. I as the reader limit myself to 20 minutes of recreational browsing at night, for example, so I stop visiting your site when it gets boring (or whatever)."
AVK adds:
"ADG wrote:
'On the Web, every site owner has his own press. Matt Drudge effectively can't be censored. I'm not sure you could find a case of censorship on the Web (except explicitly illegal material, like kiddie porn).'
Despite that belief, there *are* cases when sites and links are required to be shut down under the threat of suing, basing on DMCA. If you need links, I may dig them for you. Or visit Chilling Effects Clearinghouse yourself."
MS replies:
"You may want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Web site.
They have played large roles as both advisers and legal counsel in the debate over Internet censorship. They also have a lot of material, including numerous links, on their Web site. It's a well-known and respected organization, and would probably make an excellent source for a position paper, debate, or whatever medium you're presenting your argument.
However, if you're looking for both sides of the argument, then I would strongly suggest going to a number of different sources to get the conservative position's point of view."
TL offers insight:
"It is indeed both naive and facile to say 'there is no censorship on the Internet," just because it appears to be an 'open publishing medium' on which anyone can publish whatever they want. Of course there's censorship on the Internet, though it takes different forms. Censorship is far more than just stopping information before it gets published to a public medium; other forms of censorship include 'self-censorship' such as when someone decides not to publish something due to the threat of legal action.
Here are some examples of censorship on the Internet:
- The DeCSS case (Web site forced to remove all references to code used to break DVD encryption) — some good info on this at this site.
- Software companies using 'no public review of software unless pre-reviewed by vendor' clauses in click-wrap and shrinkwrap licenses (currently in the courts) — OK, so it's more 'general technology' related than 'Net-related.
- Libraries effectively being forced to use Internet filtering software to block access to 'offensive' Web sites (also currently in the courts — Librarians Testify in Internet Case).
- Companies, and even national governments such as China's, using Internet filtering software to block access to various Web sites
- Libel, slander, and other laws apply to the Internet as well. If you post libelous or slanderous statements about an individual or company, you may well face legal action. And if you use a Web site to operate an illegal business, the authorities have every right and ability to shut it down (witness the recent scam 'registering' .usa and .brit domain names). These are 'indirect' censorship measures, but if you don't think they're effective, try posting libelous or slanderous statements against a powerful company or individual on your Web site and see what happens. Chances are you'll quickly retract what you said and won't say something similar again.
Censorship takes many forms, not all of them bad (the Internet shouldn't shield thieves and liars, who should be held accountable for their words and actions as in any other public medium). Of course censorship exists on the Internet, as it does in almost every other public medium."
BR imparts information:
"Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who stated that a person who will sacrifice their liberties for safety deserves neither? I don't completely agree with that statement (for what parent would not sacrifice their liberty for the safety of their child?), and it in turn raises the question as to how one might define 'liberties,' but there is more than a little truth to it.
I am 'at liberty' to make any statement that I wish ... or am I? Or should I be? If it is racist? Illegal? A lie? Harmful to the safety of one or more individuals or the security of a nation? How do we define 'harmful?' The Catholic Church might disagree with the Pro-Choice movement on that definition. Couldn't you picture Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan getting together to iron out a definition of 'harmful?' What if what I'm posting on my Web site is a blatant, or even subtle by way of innuendo and distortion of facts, attack on a particular individual or organization? I have my rights to my own opinions, yes ... but what happens when, in the exercising of those rights, I impose upon or impede the rights of others?
There was a case some years back where a Web site encouraged the murder of police officers, in particular in the Los Angeles area. It was morbid, stupid, hateful. He was exercising his rights to free speech, or so he stated. In the exercise of those rights, he was imposing upon the rights, freedom and safety of others and, regardless of how subtle he attempted to be, he encouraged people to undertake illegal actions. Was the removal of this Web site censorship? Perhaps. Was it necessary? Yes.
What about the recent removal of the location of nuclear storage facilities from the Internet? Restricting the public's access to information? Yes. Is it in the best interest of the nation in order to provide the safety that its citizens require? Again, yes.
Yet those are rather clear cut situations. Information pertaining to Pro-Choice or not Pro-Choice? Sex education in the schools — at what age? In what manner? On the Internet? Ban Harry Potter books from the local library? Should U.S. Internet users be denied access to online gambling sites?
People, unfortunately, tend to play with definitions, seeing how they may use a particular definition in a manner to achieve their own goals — and some of the situations are shrouded in a penumbral cloud.
Below you'll find a few comments, definitions and links to sites regarding censorship and censorship issues. I do not necessarily agree with all of the views stated and/or the source from which they came.
'The term to describe a government's desire to curb the free speech rights of its citizens. It is censorship to restrict the speech and expression of individuals. All people have the right to express themselves as they see fit, even if their government does not recognize that right. Censorship occurs whenever government, in any form, be it as a legislative body, or as an authoritative individual government employee, passes legislation or sets policy with a goal of silencing ideas simply due to the content of those ideas.
Restrictions on speech and expression made by the private sector do not qualify as censorship as businesses are free to run themselves as they see fit. It is whenever government attempts to systematically silence ideas, in whatever medium they are found, that you have a case of censorship.' (Source: Rock Out Censorship.)
See this interesting article on censorship: Sex, Censorship, and the Internet.
Additional definition of censorship: What is Censorship?
Also see the Electronic Privacy Information Center for additional issues pertaining to Internet censorship.
Recent news on censorship pertaining to Google: Google Restores Church Links.
So is this situation censorship or does it fall under the heading of 'businesses are free to run themselves as they see fit?' Or is this 'forced self-censorship' resulting in management exercising their duty to their shareholders in an attempt to protect them from potential economic harm? Where is the line to be drawn between duty to ones shareholders and social responsibility? Does a site like Google have the right to censor pages from its directory? If so, then do the publishers of the Yellow Pages have the right to censor its listings?
We have the right to make our own informed decisions. We have to right to express our opinions, published or not. We have the right, I believe, to go down to the local public library to take out the latest Harry Potter book to read to our children. We do not have the right to impose upon the liberties of others. We do not have the right to impose upon the safety or well being of others. How we define words and phrases like 'safety' or 'informed decision' is open for debate but if we apply a little 'common sense,' is it really that difficult? So is censorship a necessary evil? At times, unfortunately, yes."
IE 7
Firefox 2.0
