Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The debate on whether governments should censor internet usage has raised much criticism as it has drawn support. The role of government, as well as government agencies, has come under spotlight in the recent past over what has been seen as infringement of freedom of speech by censoring internet content (Reporters without Borders 4).
While governments have defended themselves as intending to protect the public goodwill, effort to control the use of internet have been found to be more detrimental than advantageous, therefore, the Internet should be free from all government control. It is however safe to argue that despite the much acclaimed advantages of unrestricted internet access, there may be genuine concerns that justify government censorship of internet use. This paper is an argument for internet that is free from all government control.
History of government censorship of internet and definition of terms
Government censored internet access can be traced to the commissioning of CSIRO by the United States government in 2001to look into the effect of censoring the use of internet through filtering softwares (Mehlman para 2). This trend has been subsequently picked by governments all over the world. Governments contend that it is their responsibility to protect their netizens from the harmful effects of the open world of internet.
Currently, the most vocal governments that support and actually do censor internet content include Australia, China, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia among others (Reporters Without Borders 11 – 49; Alharbi 2010). The term netizens mean citizens who use internet. Internet is an information network that uses the web, while filtering software is a special kind of program that restricts access to certain websites in particular regions.
There are three basic ways through which internet can be censored. The most common one include technical filtering where website are blocked using a proxy. There is also the use of search result removals where undesirable content is removed from content by internet search companies.
Furthermore, governments do encourage self censorship where content publishers do limit the publication of information that may be against the public good (ONI ‘About Filtering’, paras 3 – 5). The diagram below depicts the Great Firewall of China showing the negative effects of government censorship of internet
Source: GFIC. Cyber Information Control – China Great FireWall
Benefits of uncensored access to internet
Argument I: Unrestricted internet access leads to personal and societal development.
Unrestricted internet access is seen as a leverage through which all people in the society have equal means to personal advancement. The internet is one of the key pillars for economic development.
A report by the group of eight most developed countries in the world, the G 8, indicates that information and communication technology is one of the most powerful forces that will play a decisive role the realization of the economic potential of many nations in the 21st century.
Furthermore, information and communication technology is billed as a key driver for global economic growth and as such there are infinite opportunities for economic growth (Kenny 99).For countries that are interested at expanding economic, as well as social growth, the internet is seen as one of the major avenues that will facilitate this expansion.
Where the internet is well developed, it constitutes a significant part of the national infrastructure. Furthermore, it is easier to develop the internet as a form of infrastructure. This will facilitate easier access to socio-economic opportunities by people in areas that would have otherwise been unreachable.
This is evident in comparison studies done between African and South America. South America has double the number of people who have access to internet than Africa and as such the rate of economic development is more than double in South America as compared to Africa’s (Madon 2).
In addition, the internet, because of its infinite potential, has endless economic opportunities that it provides for people (Kenny 101). However, under ordinary circumstances, it is expected that some people do benefit more than others in exploiting the economic opportunities for themselves.
According to Rawl’s social constructivism, concentration of wealth and economic advantages on one segment of the society has detrimental effects to the society at large. As such, a just and moral society must have a fair distribution and access of economic means. Furthermore, no one should have too much wealth at the expense of others. Everyone thus deserves a chance to justified means of social economic, as well as personal development (Quinn 89).
Societies must strive to provide equal opportunities, as well as advantages, to all for social, economic and personal development. While there may be economic inequalities, those inequalities must be justified by providing the most benefits to the least disadvantaged. Therefore, free and uncensored internet is a way of providing the most economic benefits to the disadvantaged in the societies.
Argument II: Internet for a free and open society.
The internet is one of the major components of a country’s infrastructural development and thus it opens up societies to the wider world. It is also one of the platforms through which people are guaranteed free speech. Therefore, the internet is one of the most powerful manifestations of free and open societies.
It is one of the tools for strengthening democracy because it is an avenue for free speech. Email, blogs and social network sites such as Facebook and twitter among others provides an opportunity for free speech and thus lead to the flourishment of democratic governance (Reporters without Borders 4).
In Saudi Arabia, a country that aims to maintain a very strong religious identity, the government maintains a very strict control over the use of internet. This government censorship has increased public anger and activists are now protesting and demanding for free internet access. The figure below shows a censored website in Saudi Arabic.
Source: Alharbi: Internet Censorship in Saudi Arabia.
While Saudis have turned to blogging as a tool for free speech, the Saudi government maintain a keen eye on internet content especially one that is deemed critical to the government. Due to the strict control of public inter-gender socialization; many women are now turning to the internet as an avenue to socialize (ONI ‘Saudi Arabia’, 1, 2). The table below shows that internet access by Saudi Arabians is still very low due to government censorship.
One of the principles of the Social Contract Theory is that all people are equal and have a right to equal access to means that would ensure social and economic advancement. Every person in any society regardless of social standing and background has guaranteed inalienable rights and basic liberties such as freedom of expression, association, conscience, right to own property, right to life, and education among others.
People have the right to enjoy those basic rights and liberties provided the enjoyment is not to the disadvantage of others in the society (Quinn 88). Since the Saudis only want freedom to freely associate with others without causing harm to both fellow Saudis and the government, then government censorship of internet access is not justifiable at all. The diagram below shows the level of internet access in Saudi Arabia.
Source: ONI: Internet filtering in Saudi Arabia
Argument III: Internet censorship is against the rule of law.
The passing of the bill by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee in 2010 that proclaimed to be combating online infringement and counterfeiting in online content is against the rule of the law. Even though the bill has gained much support from major stakeholders in such as Hollywood, the bill aims to blacklist certain website for restriction. This will be attained by blacklisting certain website domain names.
Since it will be impossible to issue court injunctions to website owners, most of who are located outside United States, website registrars within the States will be issued with a court injunction to limit such access. The main problem with this move is that website domain name registrars will be required to keep large catalogues of blacklisted websites, and as such wrongly connect them to counterfeiting activities.
This is unfair and against the rule of the law as website registrars have nothing to do with infringing activities of these websites and the court injunctions will be issued on mere accusations of infringement. Furthermore, they will neither be notified nor have an opportunity to contest with the injunction. This bill is thus unconstitutional and against the First Amendment of the American constitution (Lee paras 1 to 4).
This move violates Neo Kantian constructivism which stipulates that an action can only be termed as moral if is it is justifiable beyond any reasonable doubt by those acting. Neo Kantian theorists also argue that an action must be for the goodwill of all and should also result to justice for all (Earman 138 to 144). Quinn adds that an action is only justifiable if only it is for the purpose of the achievement of goodwill (71).
Goodwill is defined as the intension of an action that is in line with duty (what ought to be done rather than what people want to do). The Bill is thus unjust because it violates Kantian ethics as it unjustly accuses website registrars of infringements. The government wants to censor internet but in doing so violates the constitutional rights of Americans. One of the government’s cardinal duties should be to protect the rule of the law. As such, the government should not censor the internet.
Counter argument: Demerits of uncensored internet access
Despite the fact that the internet is a way of opening up the world to new endless opportunities for social economic, personal and cultural developments, this should not obscure the fact that it also has detrimental effects. Consequently, some cases have warranted censorship by some governments in order to promote public common good and reduce chances of moral and social retrogression.
Counter argument I: Unrestricted internet access might lead to personal,as well as societal retrogressiveness.
Internet usage needs to be regulated as it might lead to societal retrogressiveness. The government needs to censor the internet against transmittal of obscene content and thus limit the spread of such vices that lead to moral retrogressiveness, such as child pornography. Research demonstrates that countries that have stringent laws prohibiting the internet pornography do have very low rates of rape and murder.
Therefore, some countries such the United Kingdom passed the Obscene Publication Act that made it an offence for someone to use the internet to transit any material that is considered depraving or corrupting the morality of people (Bott 2). In the United States of America, research by University of New Hampshire shows that States such as Nebraska, which have as much as five times access to internet pornography have eight times the number of rape cases than those States with limited access to pornography (KACST para 6).
According to the Divine Moral Theory, there are a number of major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Judaism and African traditional religions. Each of these religions has an established set rules and beliefs which form the basis of the establishment of morality for those who ascribe to that religion.
Despite the fact that there may be variance in belief between these religions, they all believe in the existence of one supreme creator who made the law, which adherents of that particular religion consider sacred and supreme. Islam stipulates that Allah prefers that people should not have access to any thing that might turn their attention away from Him (KACST para 7).
Since pornography is against the wish of Allah, then most of the Muslim countries censor the internet against pornography. It therefore becomes necessary for the government to control the use of the internet, in accordance with Divine morality ethics, for purposes that are outrightly morally harmful to the people.
Counter argument II: Unrestricted Internet usage may cause harm to others
Despite the fact that uncensored internet is for the advantage of free and open societies, freedom to use internet should not lead to any form of harm to others. Some governments claim that unrestricted internet is detrimental to the society as there are people who have been known to publish or transmit information through the internet for malicious purposes.
This includes publishing private information about other people without their consent. It is also notable that people may tend to use the internet to publish or transmit private information for their own selfish gains.
Most states in USA, such as California, New York, Florida, Indiana, Texas and many others, have implemented laws to prohibit any one to publish or use another person’s name or private information, no matter how factual it is for exploitative purposes. Citizens of these States thus have the right to stop any individual or organization from using their names, or private facts.
Such limitations include using the name or fact about a person without their permission for economic or any other gain that is not for public good. Furthermore, it is illegal to use the internet to publish or transmit information that may lead to the malicious damage of person’s reputation, no matter how factual that information is. It is sufficient to say that publishing information that is considered malicious is only allowed if it is not done maliciously and whose effect is for public good.
This law was implemented by the United States government, as well as other governments, to avoid cases where by people use the internet to cause harm, disrepute or injure a person and thus protect such people against public embarrassment (Citizen Media Law para 1 – 4).
This law follows the Principle of Utilitarianism based on the act of utility, which stipulates that an action is right if it promotes the greatest happiness to all, and wrong if it reduces the happiness to all. The measure of overall happiness and unhappiness is the net effect. If the net effect of happiness outweighs the net effect of unhappiness than the act that lead to such happiness is ethical. Furthermore, act utilitarianism argues that an action is wrong if it causes harm to someone (Quinn 72).
Publishing information on the internet maliciously has a bigger net effect of unhappiness and as such the act causes personal harm and thus unethical. This justifies why the government needs to censor internet use to reduce chances of causing great unhappiness and harm to others. Such law has been to the advantage of the influential, public figures and celebrities.
Counter argument III: Internet censorship to protect the rule of law.
The government needs to censor internet usage so as to protect the rule of law. Suicide in whatever form is illegal and thus the internet should not be used for transmission of information that may lead to loss of life. The government of Australia sees it as its own responsibility to protect its citizen’s from such detriments and consequently has passed very strict laws that control the use of internet within the country’s borders. This law is contained in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Act 1999.
Under this act the government of Australia has criminalized the use of the telephone, the fax, as well as the internet, to pass any information that may cause people to take away their lives. Any information intended to be published or transmitted through these media is vetted by a government controlled body. Contained in this law is the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act which bars the transmission of any information that promotes the act of suicide amongst Australians (Commonwealth of Australia 1).
According to the Devine Moral Theory, there is a supreme being who is the creator and controller of life. As such, morality is defined by the Supreme Being. An action is only morally right if it pleases the Supreme Being. According to the Devine Moral Theory, life is sacred and no person has the right to take it away.
Therefore, it is unethical to use internet to promote or help a person end his or her life or provide others, through the internet, with information that will be used for the purposes of termination of life. This theory is intended to promote the dignity of life and argues that no one has the right to end life other than the Devine creator (Quinn 66 – 68).
Rebuttal: Unrestricted internet access is still beneficial than restricted access
Despite the genuine causes for internet censorship, Internet access and usage should be free of all government interference. According to the G8, internet is one of the most effective tools earmarked as drivers of economic growth and development in developing countries, as well as economic prosperity for developed countries.
This is because internet provides infinite opportunities for social-economic development of the majority in communities. These eventually lead to improved standards of living and personal development. As such, uncensored internet promotes general well being, common good and advancement for all.
Conclusion
Internet should be free from all government control. This is because free internet has a number of advantages in comparison to censored internet access and usage. Internet is a fast and reliable means of efficient transfer of information and therefore opens up people to a world of free information.
Therefore, not only does it lead to economic growth but it is also a means of better governance. Through the internet, democracies flourish, so does free speech. Despite the fact that the internet has been used negatively to cause harm to people, as well as deny them individual rights, its benefits have ensured that the common good and happiness for the majority is achieved.
Works Cited
Alharbi, Khalid. Internet Censorship in Saudi Arabia. 2010. Web.
Bott, Frank. Pornography, the internet and the law. Department of Computer Science, University of Wales. 2006. July 20, 2011 http://users.aber.ac.uk/mfb/Talk%20for%20BCS%20Leicester.pdf
Citizen Media Law. Publishing personal and private information: understanding your legal risks. 2008. July 20, 2011 http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2008/publishing-personal-and-private-information-understanding-your-legal-risks
Commonwealth of Australia. Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act 2005. Com law. 2011. July 20, 2011 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2005A00092/Html/Text#para2.39
Earman, John, inference, explanation, and other frustrations: Essays in the philosophy of science. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1992. July 29, 2011 https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4f59n977&chunk.id=d0e3851&toc.id=d0e30&brand=ucpress
GFIC. Cyber Information Control – China Great FireWall. Web.
KACST. Introduction to Content Filtering. 2006. Web.
Kenny, Charles. The internet and economic growth in less-developed countries: A case of managing expectations. Oxford Development Studies. 31, 1. 2003, July 20, 2011 https://charleskenny.blogs.com/weblog/files/oxdevstudspap.pdf
Madon, Shirin. The Internet and Socio-economic development: Exploring the interaction. London School of Economics. n.d. July 20, 2011 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.9673&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Lee, Timothy. Internet censorship bill threatens free speech, rule of law 2010. Web.
Mehlman, Josh. Porn wars: Episode II. 2003. Web.
ONI. About filtering. 2011. July 21, 2011 https://opennet.net/about-filtering
ONI. Internet filtering in Saudi Arabia. 2009. July 21, 2011 https://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/ONI_SaudiArabia_2009.pdf
Quinn, Michael. Ethics for the information age. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. 2011. Print
Reporters Without Borders. Internet enemies. 2011. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.