Censorship Thesis Statement

Based on my understanding of the Broadcasting Act 1988, I’ve to disagree with the statement because freedom of expression and censorship policy are both essential to a country’s development and growth. Censorship policy is a necessity for media because content that is published through the media must always be checked and filtered in order to prevent harmful and misleading content to reach the public. Examples are sex-related scenes, violence, and gore scenes, and some to the extent of causing racial controversy among the people. It is true that the contents found in media are not 100% true and authentic; However, if too much truth and info are exposed to the public, then how certain are we that the public is ready to accept all the facts?

Secondly, freedom of expression is essential for a democratic country to grow and develop succeedingly without the abuse of power. Freedom of expression also allow different views and opinions to be voiced out to the public and a country such as Malaysia that has citizens of diverse race, religion, and culture can share their beliefs and be more aware. In addition, freedom of expression has many beneficial effects on society. Freedom of expression also opens opportunities for citizens to take part in decision-making of the country such as the right to vote. Furthermore, citizens can voice out their thoughts and opinion freely without being judged. We refer to freedom of expression rather than freedom of speech because it is more accurately conveyed that it does not have to be words that are said but by the acts that we did.

However, freedom of expression may cause harm to others and if it is not controlled properly, libel and slander might occur and conflict will happen. A good example will be the case of Wee Meng Chee aka Namewee that has caused a racial controversy by putting a video of our national anthem with racial slur in it. So this is why freedom of expression should be controlled even though it is necessary for a democratic society. As we can see, freedom of expression and censorship policy synchronizes together and a democratic country could not grow with just one and without the other.

That boils up to the point, is all this restriction and limitation really necessary and needed? I will say it’s very important to be able to balance both freedom of expression and censorship policy. We need to have strong moral values in order to be able to filter contents that are useful and content that may be harmful and malicious. We the people of the country are actually the cause of all the conflict and controversy that has happened in our nation. As long as we are not educated with proper moral values and ethics, there will always be issues regarding censorship policy and freedom of expression. There is a saying: “With great power, comes great responsibility”. Based on that quote, I believe that both freedom of expression and censorship policy can be a very useful tool if we were to use it wisely but it can also be a very destructive weapon if we do not imply wisdom in using it.

There must be boundaries and limitations concerning freedom of expression because more and more individuals are starting to rise up and make a stand by voicing their opinion. It is a good thing that we are able to listen and share different views and opinions. If freedom of expression is used with the intent of helping others and bringing unity then those kinds of acts and speeches should not be blocked and restricted. A very good example pertaining to the good use of freedom of expression is the issue of Martin Luther King. Quoting his speech, he said that we should face hostility with peace. If the public can have mature and rational thinking like Martin Luther King then freedom of expression can lead to a good thing.

Internet Censorship: Pros and Cons Essay

Is Internet Censorship Justified within a Democracy?

Prompt: Under what circumstances, if any, can censorship of the media be justified in a democracy, and what are the potential dangers? Give examples to illustrate your answer

In any democracy, not all information is made public, as information flows and circulates throughout a society, there is a regulation of information and censorship that is controlled by a government. The governing body of a democracy picks and chooses what is necessary to dispel to the public in order to ensure the safety and protection of society. Control can be established over the press, advertisements, oral communication, and mass media. Though it should be a fundamental right for a democracy to have access to vital information, in some regards, censorship can be justified within a democracy. Censorship can be justified in terms of protecting society from false information that challenges the creditability of the media and limiting extremist views in order to prevent violence and terrorism. Though there is justifiable censorship, particular measures of censorship can spawn potential dangers to a given society.

Censorship has played a role in human history for decades. Within the digital media age, censorship is only going to increase for the next decades to come. Censorship has already become a normal routine surveillance within many countries. Censorship is defined as “the power to suppress parts of books, films, letters, news, etc. on the grounds of obscenity, risk to security” (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). With this definition of censorship, it alludes to being necessary when there is a risk to society. Censorship is supposed to be an ally to the public by providing inclusion, safety, and accurate information.

One’s view of the world is largely influenced by the media one consumes rather than one’s own personal experience. The media has extreme power over what views people might formulate while digesting such media. In a democracy, freedom and access to information are understood as necessary operations to ensure the development and protection of individual rights. In the digital age, internet media is a hive for society members to post ideas and opinions regarding the particular economic climate of a democracy. Citizens deserve the right to be able to publish and speak their views in order to advance the greater good of society. People need access to unbiased information to form ideas and make necessary opinions on important topics. An issue with retrieving news online is the creditability of said news sources. While online, it can be difficult to see past uncredited sources of information. In the modern world, people have the right to create fraudulent sources of news and information. Along with the creation of fake news, people also have used the internet to promote extremist agendas that unlawfully target particular demographics and nationalities. Views that are extremist, can pose a threat to society. Extremist views can promote terrorist attacks that can put the general public in danger. Misinformation that is distorted and inaccurate has the possibility to derail ones thinking and give one a misperception of the world. Censorship in this instance, can be justified to protect the moral and political principles of a society. No longer is censorship limited to printed media and films, it is extremely relevant in the age of the internet. Censorship can be justified if it is able to protect the greater good of society.

Internet news is abundant and easily available nowadays (Lu and Andrews, 2006). The majority of people turn to the Internet as opposed to other traditional news outlets because of its convenience. It is estimated in a research study conducted by the Pew Research Center that “43% of Americans report often getting news online, just 7 percentage points lower than the 50% who often get news on television” ( Gottfried and Shearer, 2017). Television has long dominated as the main source of news, however, since the rise of the internet, television has been decreasing as the main source. The internet is rapidly taking its place as the new main source of news information. This new-found reliance on internet news “poses a threat to the accuracy of news being distributed. Due to the nature of the internet such as the anonymity of sender location, the role of the sender, and even the identity of the sender, there are few barriers to stop people from publishing on the internet” ( Mehrabi, Hassan, & Sham Shahkat Ali, 2009). With the common person having access to post anything they want online, this poses a threat to the accuracy of the information that circulates online. Many online sources of today are not fact-checked, have no creditable sources, and are filled with false accusations. These particular matters have been linked with concerns of “fabricated or false quotation and other type of information counterfeit”(Fogg, 2003). According to Gorman a professor at the Victoria University of Wellington, he explains “censorship that is directly involved in the regulation of information flows serves as the considerably important measure that can protect society from disinformation” (Gorman, 2007). Censorship can be an ally in limiting the disinformation of certain websites. Another supporter of Internet censorship mentions that along with controlling disinformation, “information over the Internet carries a certain amount of potentially harmful or illegal content that can instigate criminal activities and terrorism” (Cohen, 1997). Along with the inaccuracy of information, this information can spawn more criminal activity and terrorism. Censorship can be used as a tool to prevent misinformation from spreading online. Disinformation is dangerous since it can inaccurately inform viewers of important current events. The internet has no checks and balances of information that is published online which could be a threat to society. With the internet having a wide and diverse audience of viewers who use sites as sources for information, censorship can provide better sources to its given society so they can be more accurately informed. Education is the backbone of society, members of a democracy need to be accurately informed in order to make logical decisions to advance a country. The censorship of inaccurate and non-fact-checked news can be beneficial for those seeking hard and factual news on the internet. Censorship is justifiable because it can prevent and protect citizens from false information.

The government is justified in using censorship to protect the public from terrorism and extremism that can be found on the internet. Extremism is a national security issue that affects everyone in a particular society. Censorship can be used to limit the spread of extremism and to prevent dangerous and racist extremist views from being posted online. For example, Islamic extremism is considered to be a poetically dangerous issue in Kazakhstan (Rywkin, 2005: 441). However, due to the government’s response to controlling extremist media, dangerous and threatening extremist viewpoints do not pose a threat to security any longer. By censoring dangerous media, it has proven to limit the threats that were once a concern to society. This example provides context to how censorship can be beneficial to limiting such dangers.

The blurred lines that come with the term “national security “is where the potential dangers of censorship arise. The problem is that the concept of ‘national security’ is vaguely defined and can be interpreted in a way that the authorities want it to be interpreted (Wolfers, 1952: 481 – 482). The government is left to define what they feel is a threat to national security. Some governments may use this as a way to suppress their democracy. This then allows the government to suppress the freedom of expression, silencing certain racial and ethnic groups, and other human rights by defining it as protection of the state. Along with this, censorship of what is said online poses a huge threat to the right to free speech. The diversity of content online should not be limited if the government is not in favor of the ideas posted. Of course, the government should monitor online speech that is looking to harm and threaten the safety of society members. However, giving the government power to censor what each person posts online can do more harm than good. Giving the government this power to limit speech online it puts free speech in danger. The internet should stay as a breeding ground for new practices and ideas without limitation. The danger of absolute control over the web can weaken and limit a democracies ability to freely think and make educated choices.

The idea and intent of censorship in a society may deem as unjust and a limitation to the freedom of speech and ideas. However, in some cases, censorship could be beneficial in providing accurate news sources and limiting extremism that might be a danger to a given society. More and more, people are turning to the internet to form political ideas and conclusions. The issue with this has to deal with fraudulent news that is broadcasted on the internet. There are no checks and balances on the web that can prevent the spread of fake news. In relation, harmful and hateful speech has a home online without regulation. This form of hate speech can put particular demographics in danger. Though censorship has the possibility to limit dangerous acts of terrorism from spawning, the danger of letting the government control what is deemed as a threat to national security is unsettling. Giving the government the power to limit certain media outlets can halt the progression of society and stop the sharing of ideas. Censorship is still a slippery slope because it is not guaranteed to stop these social issues. In some instances, it has the power to worsen these issues and make them more prevalent in other forms. Censorship is justifiable if it can provide an unbiased and accurate approach to bettering the news that appears on the web. Censorship can also be justifiable for protecting the public from terrorism and extremism that can be found on the internet. More research needs to be done on censorship before any actions take place in the future.

Works Cited

    1. Bitso, C., Fourie, I. and Bothma, T. J. (2013). Trends in transition from classical censorship to Internet censorship: selected country overviews. Innovation, 46 (1), 166 – 191.
    2. Censorship in libraries – Charles Oppenheim and Victoria Smith Cohen, T. 1997. Censorship and the regulation of speech on the Internet. Johannesburg: Centre for Applied Legal Studies.
    3. Fogg, B. J., 2003. persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
    4. Gorman, G. (2007). A tale of information ethics and encyclopædias; or, is Wikipedia just another internet scam? Online Information Review, 31(3), 273-276.
    5. Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2017, September 7). Internet closes in on TV as a source of news in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/americans-online-news-use-vs-tv-news-use/.
    6. Lu, H., and Andrews, J. E., 2006. College Students’ Perception of the Absolute Media Credibility about SARS-Related News during the SARS Outbreak in Taiwan. China Media Research, 2(2), 85-93.
    7. Mehrabi, D. (2009, November 1). News Media Credibility of the Internet and Television. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Davood_Mehrabi/publication/228679972_News_media_credibility_of_the_internet_and_television/links/5b4c8ac4aca272c60947c2a2/News-media-credibility-of-the-internet-and-television.pdf.
    8. O’Malley, T., & Soley, C. (2000). Regulating the press. London: Pluto Press. RYWKIN, M. I. C. H. A. E. L. (n.d.). Stability in Central Asia: Engaging Kazakhstan. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233221083_Stability_in_Central_Asia_Engaging_Kazakhst
    9. Feintuck, M., & Varney, M. (2013). Media regulation, public interest, and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.
    10. Wolfers, A. (1952). ‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), 481-502. doi:10.2307/2145138

Censorship in Schools: Pros and Cons Essay

For my issues paper I chose to write about the pros and cons of censorship in public and public school libraries. As I researched, my understanding of exactly what censorship is changed quite a bit from the rudimentary understanding I had before. As a result, I came to realize just how complicated of an issue it really is and why there hasn’t (in many minds) been a truly universal solution thus far. Librarians of course have principles and codes they have chosen to uphold, however (as most idealistic intentions have in common) humans are not so black and white as we might wish to be. There are also widespread and very reasonable concerns about minors’ access to inappropriate material before they are ready for it. This is what makes for a complicated dilemma as these lawful rights and the perceived potential to harm children conflict with each other. I will delve into this complex quandary, first exploring the cons (and later the pros) of censorship in public schools.

According to Dr. McElrath’s Module 7 PowerPoint presentation, censorship is defined as “examining resources for the purpose of removing, suppressing, banning, prohibiting, labeling, prescribing, restricting, exorcising, or deleting (including due to being deemed objectionable on moral, religious, political, military, or other grounds).” It is in direct opposition to the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Library Bill of Rights (while not technically an official law, is still a code librarians are expected to operate by – regardless of their own beliefs and values). Contrary to what many likely believe, these rights apply to minors as well. The ALA website states “Library procedures that deny minors equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The ALA opposes all attempts to restrict access based on the age of library users” (“Interpretations”). So censoring materials goes against the very law and core of librarianship, regardless of the library setting or the age of the patrons. This alone is a highly compelling argument against censorship.

Filtering the internet is an exceedingly common practice currently used in public schools (as well as many public libraries). CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) “requires any public or school library that is to receive federal eRate funding to have Internet use policies and to install technology that blocks or filters Internet content that has been deemed harmful to minors” (Childs). However, when steps are taken to censor materials online in this way, it often causes its own fair share of problems. There is often the issue of under or overclocking; either not being efficient enough (some students even being savvy enough to hack through the blocking), or too efficient (blocking school appropriate and/or useful websites) – further impairing student learning. Due to overclocking, students or patrons may have to ask to be unblocked which can lead to a violation of privacy as well as a feeling of suspicion (which may cause patrons to hesitate if they even choose to ask at all).

Rubin (493-494) argues that censorship inhibits the need to educate future generations, stating “Others contend that a comprehensive education involves exposing students to many different points of view and teaching them the critical thinking skills necessary to make well-reasoned decisions.” Anderson discusses how, while librarians are human with their own personal beliefs (political, religious, etc.), it is important that they do not allow themselves to become activists to further their own agenda – “critical that they are objective and unbiased, curating a well-rounded collection that contains a wide array of viewpoints.” If students are only exposed to a narrow set of perspectives, then their intellectual vision will also be narrow (similar to the old saying “small towns breed small minds”). It is also fair to say that these children will grow up one day to be a part of the “real world” (which includes sexuality, violence, profanity, etc.). So to attempt to shield them entirely from that until adulthood is not exactly realistic (naivete after all has its own set of dangers). Kinkaid’s article discusses a helpful set of procedures to follow if ever met with opposition over censorship. These include making sure all staff knows the policies, how to deal with an angry stakeholder, being knowledgeable on the materials in question and prepared to justify their inclusion, and being well versed in the First Amendment and Library Bill of Rights.

Everyone has different perspectives, and in certain areas of the United States, many may share harmful ideals against a marginalized group. If the librarians of such a given area act upon that shared culture, purposefully failing to curate literature including that/those groups, then that will likely make those groups feel unwelcome and perhaps even as if they are walking into a hostile environment (which is the opposite of what libraries are supposed to stand for). This also sets up that area to continue that cycle of narrow viewpoints for generations to come. Peet’s article goes on to discuss the allowance of hate group’s literature in the library as well as their use of the meeting rooms (in this particular instance the KKK). It is questioned whether that is truly still considered a safe place if their presence (due to their violent history, even if they are not being overtly hostile) perpetuates a feeling of the opposite (especially to those marginalized groups their hate is directed towards). James LaRue (Director of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom) makes the fair point, however, that “as long as they are following the rules of conduct” then to deny them access to express their First Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent for other groups. He also makes sure to point out that any such group meetings do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the library (and its staff) but that they must uphold the right to free speech To not allow one group would open up the doors for any other group to be disallowed for any incongruence with any given staff member’s personal beliefs.

While intellectual freedom is currently backed by the First Amendment, laws can always change and many continue to fight for censorship (of materials for minors especially). Reasons for censorship include “profanity, sexuality, religion/witchcraft, violence/horror, rebellion, racism/sexism, substance use/abuse, suicide/death, crime, crude behavior, and depressing/ negative tone” (Rickman). In spite of First Amendment rights, it is largely agreed that children should not have free access to all of the media and literature that exists in the world (and there is not much educationally to gain from exposing a 7-year-old to literature or media containing extreme violence and sexuality). There is much that they are simply not capable of fully understanding yet, which can lead to a multitude of negative outcomes. The question is, how is it possible to protect children without infringing on their rights?

Some schools are trying to find ways to compromise and still incorporate books (that may be seen as objectionable) while allowing parents to make the final decision on what their child reads. A Delaware school sends home permission slips so they could be given an alternate (still aligned to the subject matter) book to read if they are opposed to the assigned one (Censorship dateline). This is seen by many as “soft censorship” as it is essentially “poisoning the well” to have to get permission (as there is an implication that the materials contain objectionable or inappropriate material). However, it does give parents some control over what their child is reading while not affecting the learning of other students. Some other districts are using opt-out policies where parents can view the year’s upcoming curriculum/book lists and opt-out of certain books (again having similar, yet more “unoffensive” books substituted). Dana Nahlen makes a good point that “the only way you get to where no one opts out is if you take all diversity of thought out of the literature” (Censorship dateline). Be that as it may, should it not be the parent’s final decision on what their child is exposed to? Even the ALA itself purports a similar message “We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children’s use of the library and its resources and services” (“Libraries”).

School libraries are in a unique situation as they also have “loco parentis” responsibilities (meaning they essentially act in place of the parents), and parents thus “expect schools to protect their children from harm, including from ‘unhealthy’ materials” (Rubin 515 ). While the “ALA recognizes the importance of specifically addressing the needs of school library media centers…attempts to restrict use or access should be resisted” (Rubin 515-516). Unfortunately not much was then said on exactly how to address these unique needs (without censorship). It seems there is not much other option than to in some way censor materials – whether that be through filtering, opt-outs/permission slips, and/or choosing books for curriculum that do not contain any or very little “objectionable” material. That being said, as the grade levels go up those types of books are much more difficult to find, and thus by their very nature less likely to provide a well-rounded education/variance in perspectives.

At the same time, choosing age/emotionally-appropriate literature is important and in effect, there has to be some kind of censorship happening. There may be a book out there written to a 2nd grader’s reading level, but if it contains sexual situations and copious profanity (despite possibly having wonderful educational content) it is realistically not going to be chosen for the school reading list. While minors technically have First Amendment rights, there is no doubt some form of censorship happening when most educators are selecting books (especially due to the subjective nature of what is objectionable) and most parents are going to support that. Even public libraries can feel this pressure – “to ensure the survival of the library – those who wish to restrict materials often threaten to campaign against funding for library services, thus threatening the survival of the library itself” – and may partake in subtle self-censoring to keep their stakeholders happy (Rubin 547). This practice is typically done under the radar due to being difficult to prove as there are many reasons certain books may not be selected (such as budget or lack of interest) (R.S.).

In summation, it is clear why this is such a complicated and controversial issue. On the one hand, censorship is a violation of rights, and it is clear what a dangerous precedent it sets (the current state of North Korea is just one example). On the other hand, it is generally agreed that there is a lot of media that children should not be exposed to too early. Admittedly, while writing this paper I had difficulty finding articles in favor of censorship. This is likely due to the fact that the databases used are rooted in a college that offers an MLS degree and of course, colleges in general are against censorship. Any mention of the reasons or desires for censorship was typically met with an opposing viewpoint by the author. However, there are some fair points where children are concerned (especially in this digital age where everything is accessible online). Movies have age restrictions (that can of course be overridden by parents), so why not books? If it would cause more harm than good for children to be exposed to it, then would it not be a reasonable practice?

At the same time restricting items often has the opposite effect, causing the item to become even more desirable. This very thing happened to me recently, when a suicide scene was removed from the popular Netflix series 13 Reasons Why (based on a book by the same title). Before its removal, I had the show on my watch list but wasn’t in any big rush to get to it. The fact that this scene had now been removed made me very curious and I even admittedly attempted (unsuccessfully) to find the clip online. Two interviewed students expressed the same thoughts in the Isajlovic-Terry article, even listing ways they got around their school’s attempts to restrict what they could check out (including having an older sibling check it out for them, sneak it home and read it without their parent’s knowledge, etc.).

The only real solution I have personally come to is that intellectual freedom must be upheld, but that parental involvement and encouraging age-appropriate reading is also important. As the old saying goes, “raise up a child in the way he should go and he will not turn from it.” If parents hold certain beliefs and values, then it should be a continual discussion in the home and children should have a pretty clear idea of what is expected of them (for a perhaps extreme example – not searching for pornography on the school laptop or checking out “50 Shades of Gray” when they are only in the 3rd Grade). If a parent opposes literature being read in school, they should have the right to request an alternative book. At the end of the day, I believe that libraries should not be censored, but that parents ultimately have the right to decide what is appropriate for their child.

Works Cited

    1. Anderson, Judy. “Intellectual Freedom Equals Individual Freedom.” Journal of Information Ethics, vol. 27, no. 2, Fall 2018, pp. 7–12. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=133682175&site=ehost-live.
    2. Best, Rickey. “Censorship or Selection? Academic Library Holdings Of the Top Ten Most Challenged Books of 2007.” Education Libraries, vol. 33, no. 2, Winter 2010, pp. 18–35. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=58489279&site=ehost-live.
    3. “Censorship Dateline: Schools.” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, vol. 64, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 7–22. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=102304921&site=ehost-live.
    4. Childs, Laura. “To Uphold and Resist: Protecting Intellectual Freedom through Progressive Librarianship.” Serials Librarian, vol. 73, no. 1, Sept. 2017, pp. 58–67. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/0361526X.2016.1270248.
    5. “Filters and Filtering.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, May 2017, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/filtering.
    6. “Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, 2018, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations.
    7. Isajlovic-Terry, Natasha, and Lynne (E. F. McKechnie. “An Exploratory Study of Children’s Views of Censorship.” Children & Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children, vol. 10, no. 1, Spring 2012, pp. 38–43. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=75044356&site=ehost-live.
    8. Kincaid, Courtney, and Brooke King. “Fire Up About CENSORSHIP.” Texas Library Journal, vol. 94, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 12–13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=128726902&site=ehost-live.
    9. “Libraries: An American Value.” American Library Association, ALA American Library Association, 3 Feb. 1999, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/americanvalue.
    10. McElrath, Dr. Eileen. “Module 7 Censorship Summer 2019.” PowerPoint presentation. Accessed 17 July 2019.
    11. “Minors and Online Activity: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, 24 June 2019, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minorsonlineactivity.
    12. Peet, Lisa, and Kara Yorio. “First Amendment Debate.” School Library Journal, vol. 64, no. 8, Aug. 2018, pp. 12–13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=131053818&site=ehost-live.
    13. Request. “Professional Ethics.” Tools, Publications & Resources, ALA American Library Association, 6 May 2019, www.ala.org/tools/ethics.
    14. Rickman, Wendy. “A Study of Self-Censorship by School Librarians.” School Library Media Research, vol. 13, Jan. 2010, pp. 1–21. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=126492386&site=ehost-live.
    15. R. S. “Here’s Why It’s Censorship.” Horn Book Magazine, vol. 83, no. 3, May 2007, p. 228. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=24638990&site=ehost-live.
    16. Rubin, Richard. Foundations of Library and Information Science, 4th ed. NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2016.
    17. Scales, Pat. “Age-Appropriate Reading.” School Library Journal, vol. 63, no. 4, Apr. 2017, p. 24. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=122345155&site=ehost-live.

What Is Censorship in Art: Critical Essay

Writer, academic, and free speech activist Svetlana Mintcheva encapsulates the power of art by acknowledging its inherent duality and emphasizing its vitality to culture as a catalyst for social change. Artistic expression is fundamental to the development of all societies, broadening people’s perspectives on different political, cultural, and social issues. It not only serves as a tool of introspection but also as a means of questioning the world around us. Artistic expression has long been recognized as a fundamental human right. And yet, censorship of art is a prominent contemporary issue restricting the function of the artist, and consequently containing the potential for art to “comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable”.

My PIP analyses the role and influence of external censorship (moral, aesthetic, and political) on self-censorship, and the implications this has on artistic expression. I compare how censorship operates within Australian and Chinese cultures to understand if it occurs regardless of the cultural context. My aim is to reveal how external censorship at the macro level is internalized by the individual and influences the individual to self-censor, therefore profoundly inhibiting self-expression.

Both primary and secondary research methods were integral in developing my understanding of censorship culture in relation to artistic expression. My personal reflection was integral to articulate my own experience as an individual engaged with the arts, and how this has influenced the opinions I hold on self-censorship. The questionnaire concerning engagement with social media platforms and the public’s understanding of censorship served as an effective tool to deduce the importance placed on self-expression and the ability to express oneself through digital media platforms in Australian culture. Both content analyses aided in analyzing common themes and subject matter between various censored works by Chinese and Australian artists, which gave me an indication of themes that are censored irrespective of the culture in which they are created. In addition to this, extensive secondary research provided me with a variety of perspectives that have expanded my understanding of censorship culture and how it functions in the art world.

The introduction of new media as an aspect of modernization is a central change that I identify as fundamental to understanding the various guises modern censorship operates under, and the influence it has had on the interpretation of modern art. I also focus on the repression of artistic expression through moral, political, and aesthetic censorship as a universal continuity that has sustained itself across cultures.

My cross-cultural component focuses on the change in censorship according to cultural context. I look at the existing differences between censorship in China compared to Australia and the extent to which they impact artistic expression. By comparing two seemingly opposing cultures, I am able to infer the extent to which culture influences self-censorship.

This project has allowed me to not only reflect on the presence of censorship in wider society, but it has also raised my awareness of its influence on the individual. I have developed a passion for understanding the power dynamics involved in censorship, and in particular, how the agents of censorship (moral, political, and aesthetic) interact with the individual to create an ideal situation where the licensee becomes the censor.

Freedom of Speech and Media Censorship in Pakistan

Media is the most important element for the development of the freedom of expression. According to Article 19 the constitution of Pakistan states, ‘Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This research method is a qualitative research analysis of the relation between Pakistan’s political, military and media. .In this research thesis a historical study conducted about politics, establishment and the media of Pakistan. Modern Democracy establish through fair and free media, without fair and free media modern democracy can’t exist. That’s why media plays the role of fourth pillar of state. Media plays a healthy role for the improvement of government policies thorough criticism. Media represent public opinion. Media represents the strength of the democracy in a state In this thesis a brief and important history discuss about Pakistani Democracy ,Martial law ,Politics and media. Medi va independence is guaranteed if media organizations free from political interference, media owners and the establishment. In this thesis some important history events discuss. Pakistan, unluckily since its formation in 1947, has been continuously victimized by political instability. Even after the death of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, no one political leader could prove him the savior of Pakistan and no one could kick out Pakistan from political and economical problems. From 1947 to 1958, there was continuous political anarchy and unstable governments.

Muslim League considering its birth right to rule the country but forgot the politics of principles taught by the father of the nation during freedom movement and this way supported for the first Martial Law in October 1958,failure of political leadership. Some very important political events discuss in this thesis. General Muhammad Ayub Khan decided to quit in 1969 and powers were transferred to General Yahya Khan, the 2nd Martial Law Administrator. The democracy was restored in 1972 but this restoration led to another Martial Law imposed by General Zia ul Haq in 1977. General Zia died in an air crash on 17th of August 1988 and Benazir Bhutto became the next elected Prime Minister. For the next 11 years, the government rolled like a ball between Pakistan People‟s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and both the parties led to another phase of martial law. These four military regimes were the same as far as the tactics to assume power and efforts to sustain rule were concerned but during that regime media witnessed a change in its policies. When the martial law was imposed on October 12, 1999, media was on the same lines to praise the ruler and criticize his predecessor. But after the elections of 2002, there was a significant change in its behavior. Many new private channels had been opened like geo news and they started a competition to be more informative, up to date and critical. The change in the electronic media policy of government influenced the print media policy. So, here we are going to have a look on the journey of Pakistani media towards freedom of expression.

In this thesis some important aspects and events of electronic media history has discuss like electronic media,print media, radio these kind of media are discussing briefly in this thesis and their history and events as well. Like In October 1998, radio Pakistan started FM transmissions and over the period of 2002-2005 new FM stations were opened at major cities. Now these FM stations are very much familiar in this country. In this thesis Establishment role in PTV and media are also discuss. In fact media was just like a puppet in government‟s hands, it couldn‟t take decisions at its own. Now it is a shocking fact for us that free media initiated taken by also establishment key player Gneneral Pervaiz Musharaf in his Martial Law Regime.In his Regime many private channels were launched and Musharaf fully supported them . In this thesis Researcher claimed that this General Pervaiz Musharaf Era Media Golden time was starting and media and media was become a four pillar of the state with freely way . Now Pakistani media is more liberal and vibrant media in this country. Cable system was also introduced in 2004 in major cities of Pakistan and then it expanded all over the country.

A detail history of print media has also discuss in this thesis. Looking at the history of print media in Pakistan in the perspective of political development, it is unfortunate to note that the history of 70 years is full with successful use of all means to suppress media by Government, whether these governments were political or military. Although, Pakistan was achieved in the name of Islam, where every person would be allowed to follow his religion, customs, culture and traditions yet the media were not given permission to work freely. They were not more than a puppet in governments‟ hands. They were not free to defend the democratic values; instead they were working to praise government policies for just to secure themselves. “National interests”, “the glory of Islam” and “the Ideology of Pakistan”This is talking about the role of print media on that time to this time when electronic media was not started.

When one talks about media and its role in deepening democracy it doesn‟t mean that only democracy depends on media, but media is also dependent on democracy. If a country has strong and free media there would be a suitable atmosphere for democracy, and if a state is a strong and has true democracy its media should be strong and free. So, the week democratic background of Pakistani politics is due to the media also, which has not played its due role in the past. Democracy and Media are closely linked with each other. The deficit of one has its negative implications for the other. It is natural that they reinforce each other. However like democracy whose quality is crucial for sustaining it, the media cannot perform its role effectively without maintaining high professional standards and performing their critical role with responsibility.

Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government

Introduction

Internet can be defined as computer networks interconnection using a standard protocol to provide information to the entire world irrespective of where one is at any time (Garcia 32). The networks compose of public computers, learning institutions computers, business enterprises computers and private organization computers for local and global scope.

Earlier the internet was being referred to as the information super highway, its’ main aim of was to avail limitless information to everyone who needs it as fast as possible. Internet censorship refers to the act of controlling information access through the internet. Main motives of internet censorship vary from one website to another (“Research profiles.” 1).

Main reasons are children protection from harmful and explicit material, enabling grown up avoid contents that may compromise their community and personal standards, imposition of a moral framework in adult communication through the internet, and blocking of information material that is illegal to possess according to the government of a particular country under consideration.

The government uses various techniques to censor internet depending on the content they want to restrict. It does so through the use of program software called web filters or censor ware.

Internet censorship

Main techniques for internet censorship include, IP blocking technique, this target website hosted by a common server. The entire websites hosted by that particular IP address are blocked (“Research profiles” 1).Whenever one tries to access them he/she is denied the access rights. Filtering domain name server (DNS) method, in this method the domain name is not resolved hence one is unable to access the site. This method uses software that restrict resolving of the domain name, as a result the target website is unavailable.

Packet filtering method, this technique uses keywords in filtering the content to be accessed, if the keyword is detected the site content is blocked. Another method is through the use of the uniform resource locator (URL), it uses keywords to block censored site from access. When one try to access a website the uniform resource locator is checked if it consists of the restricting keyword, if the keyword is found in the URL the site become unavailable.

Reasons for censorship

Different government censors the internet due to different reasons, some may be reasonable and varied, while others are misuse of the power by the government. This has created a controversial situation of whether the government should carry out internet censorship or not (Kenny 1).

Different people have different views depending on the perspective one look the situation from, each any everyone has reason and evidence to support his/her theory. The positive aspects of internet censorship by the government around the world are immense.

World internet censorship ratings

World internet censorship ratings.

  • Blue – No censorship;
  • Yellow – Some censorship;
  • Red – Country under surveillance from Reporters without Borders;
  • Grey – Internet black holes (most heavily censored nations).

The rule makers and enforcers should work hand in hand. Their Failure to cooperate leads the rule amounting to nothing. The social contract theory was developed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes; it argues that without rules and a systematic way of enforcing them the efforts amount to nothing. It uses the concept of cooperation between involved parties, they mutually resolve to follow laid down guidelines.

The guidelines are the rules set to benefit the people socially. All agree there should be rules laid down and the government should ensure they are enforced to all irrespective of one position. This theory was develop due to no man has authority over others naturally, hence there was need to establish contracts based on covenants. For censorship to be effective the law enforces and the designers should be one body (Eid 1).

Currently there are many unethical action been carried out, since the enforcers have absconded their duties. Regulations that govern the internet ethic are no longer being observed while the law enforces are enforcing new rules at will without consulting. Recently the government of Afghanistan censored interactive sites without even consulting. This shows there is a link between the enforcers and the law makers.

The rules are desirable if the effect s of their consequences is positive. If the consequences are negative then the rule is undesirable. The theory of rule utilitarianism was developed as a result of weaknesses in the act utilitarianism theory.

The morals theory argues that an action is morally right, if the consequences of an action results to an increase in the level of happiness. The theory uses the rules when explaining the moral values of an individual contrary to the act utilitarianism which uses the principle of utility (“Introduction to Content Filtering” 7).

It tries to exploit the fact that the rules are universally adoptable, hence result to immense happiness. Rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are similar in that they use the rule to base their argument. The difference between the two is that rule utilitarian emphasis on the action consequences while the Kantianism emphasizes on the action motive. It encourages universal adoption of an action that will increase the pleasure of the affected subjects.

In the year 2003 August, a worm by the name of blaster infected computer system using windows operating system .The worm exploited a security loophole in the windows operating system. It resulted to excess network traffic and also disabled some of the networks. The infection resulted to computer rebooting itself continually. Another worm named Nachi was developed to exploit the same loophole, but did not infect those immune to the blaster worm.

On contrary Nachi worm accessed the computer in the network to destroy blaster worm copies and also to download patches of windows to fix the loophole problem. According to the computer ethics introduction of harmful malware in a network is unethical and prohibited. According to the rule utilitarian it was morally correct since the consequences of the action increased pleasure to the affected subject.

Impact on the society

The consequences of an action do not matter. What matters are the actions themselves. The act utilitarianism theory was developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

This contradicted the earlier theory of Kantianism. It based its’ argument on the fact that an action is termed to be good if the result benefit a person and undesirable if the action harm someone. The theory was founded on the principle of utility, where the action is gauged to be right or wrong depending on the effect on the level of happiness on the concerned party.

This theory measures the morality by determining the rise or fall of happiness on the concerned party. Attitude behind an action is not relevant in this argument, what is of more concern is the consequences of the actions. Being in this context is used to refer to anything that may experiences happiness and sadness. From the definition the being not only refers to the humans but also other mammals. It is hard to measure utility thus several attribute have been selected to weigh the effect of an action on the pain and pleasure (Carter 1).

Intensity measures the experience extent, certainty measures the likelihood, and duration measures the experience length, extent measures the number of being affected, purity measures the concentration of pain or pleasure, and fecundity measures the ability replicate the experience.

Freedom without limit is always abused; most internet users do not observe the internet rules set aside to govern access of information. Almost all government censors sensitive government information or the information is not availed to the internet users.

The explicit material in the internet should be restricted to avoid underage from accessing them. Most of the Muslim dominant countries pornographic materials have been completely censored. This ensures the young ones are protected from obscene materials. The action of the government is essential to maintain a morally upright generation in censoring some materials. Due to the complex internet network the government cannot leave the censoring action to parents or private companies, it has to undertake the action itself.

The will motivating an action should be the basis of judging an action whether morally right or wrong. An action may not be moral but the motive was moral.

The Kantianism` theory was developed by a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. His argument was, people action and deeds should be based on moral laws which are universally acceptable. Citing the bible examples to support his theory, he believed for any supreme moral law to hold it must be based upon some reasoning. Someone who is a Kantian should be able to state something whether it is good or bad and qualify it using specific and varied reasoning. It entails more than arguing whether something is morally right or wrong.

The main reasoning was something may be morally right, yet it can be used wrongly to harm others or cause conflict. In this world there are barely good things without need to qualify them to be good. Only good will can be termed to be good, since there is no need to qualify it to be good. An action cannot be termed to be good simply due to the beneficial results; something good is good irrespective of the outcome from the action.

What we are meant to do is more important than what we do. We should act out of morals instilled in use rather than what we feel we should do, our moral should be the driving force upon our actions. The oppressive regime use this theory to suppress it citizen and deprive them information access. They censor interactive sites to intimidate those opposing their agenda. Late 2009 China censored interactive site especially in Tibet area. This was meant to curb growing defiance against the government

It is hard to say that the consequences of an action do not matter; what’s matter is the action itself. People are more concerned in the results not the way the results have been achieved. Kantianism theory advocate that the motive is what’s matters not he actual result of the actions. If you have a granary infested with rats, there are different ways to remedy the situation.

If you burn down the whole granary it is an option but at what cost. As much as the motive of an action is good the consequence are dire. As much as the government may have good motives and intention in censoring the internet, caution should be taken to ensure the consequences do not outweigh the gains.

The Kantianism theory should not be employed much in censoring as it may result to undesirable dire consequences. January this year the Iran government censored all interactive site, in a mission to curb government critics who were using them to sell their ideas. In addition they also banned women right websites; this caused more harm than good. It also denied the woman their rights to voice out their view; such school of thought belongs to the Stone Age where women were considered inferior.

Error analyses of filters

Filtering Product Misdetection False Alarm Error Rate
Smart Filter 15% 7% 11%
Surf Watch 12% 7% 10%
Web Sense 17% 9% 13%
I-Gear 36% 10% 23%
Cyber Patrol 16% 7% 11%
N2H2 14% 7% 11%

Error analyses of filters.

Conclusion

Government Internet censorship is not meant to suppress the society of information access, although it may result not unanticipated negative result. Every government actions to censor internet access are meant for the better of its citizen. But there are isolated cases, where the government censors internet access using unvaried bases.

This may result the country citizen being left behind in the fast growing global village. The reason for censoring internet should be clearly defined and measures put in place to protect the law from being abused. The law should also clearly define the method and modes to be used in censoring to avoid safe site from being blocked due to criterion used to block.

From the theories discussed above, it is clear from the different approaches the main objective of all is the effect of censoring to the people. They all agree if censoring result to positive effect then it is worthy but if it is harmful then it is harmful to the same people it ought to be protecting.

Irrespective of the reasons behind the censoring of the internet the result should be positive, it should not affect the people’s majority negatively. Whether it uses the rules, consequences of the action or the will motivating the action, the moral effect should be upheld at all times. Internet should be used for moral upright or justifiable action at all time. The internet ethos should be upheld and observed by all internet users indiscriminately of their position.

Error analysis of filters for the distinct data set

Filtering Product Misdetection False Alarm Error Rate
Smart Filter 13% 4% 8%
Surf Watch 12% 11% 11%
Web Sense 12% 7% 10%
I-Gear 36% 7% 21%
Cyber Patrol 15% 9% 12%
N2H2 11% 1% 6%

Error analysis of filters for the distinct data set.

Complete censoring of the internet is contrary to the objective of having it and unhealthy to the people. The main aim of the internet is information sharing among the users and all information about any subject across the world should be accessible from anywhere in the world (Edelman 2).

Censoring result to discriminated information sharing and result to the internet falling short of its main objective. This hurt many sector in the world from business to entertainment. Although internet censoring is essential, it should be done up to a certain level where it cause more good than harm to the people.

Works Cited

Carter, Wendy. “How to write a thesis statement.” 2003. Web.

Edelman, Benjamin. “” 2010. Web.

Eid, Gamal. “The Internet in the Arab World A Space for Repression?” Reports and Press Releases. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. 2004. Web.

Garcia_Murillo, M. “Assessing the impact of Internet Telephony on the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.” 2010. Web.

Introduction to Content Filtering. “What is this service?” 2010. Web.

Kenny, Aaron. “Inside Internet Filtering.” 2009. Web.

Kuwait. “” 2010. Web.

Saudi Arabia. “” 2010. Web.

Censorship on the Internet

Abstract

The internet was founded on the philosophy of openness and its inventors hoped to provide a means through which information could be shared freely among participants. However, it has grown to become a heavily restricted medium with some form of censorship being implemented everywhere and severe censorship in a few places.

This paper highlights the reasons why censorship is on the increase. A list of the technologies employed to achieve censorship is given followed by the techniques used. The paper concludes by observing that internet censorship will continue to increase in coming years as governments, organizations, and parents seek more control in the internet.

Introduction

The Internet has emerged as the most important invention of the 21st century. This creation has acquired the status of “most important technology” due to the positive impact that it has had worldwide. However, the internet also has some negative impacts and this has led many people to regard the technology as a double-edged sword with both negative and positive attributes.

On the positive, it has made communication easier and turned the world into a global village through its interconnectivity ability. It has increased the ease with which people all over the world can access valuable news and information. On the negative, the internet has increased the security threats to all people by making it easy for terrorists and anarchists to access dangerous information such as how to make bombs.

Objectionable and inciting material is also easily available and this might threaten the stability of the society. Governments and organizations have therefore been forced to take steps to mitigate the potential harmful effects of the internet. The motivation behind these actions has been to enable people to benefit from the wealth of information contained in the internet while at the same time safeguarding the lives of innocent people.

Software solutions have been used to prevent access to any material considered dangerous or objectionable. While some people see censoring as a positive act that protects the society, others view it as a violation of the individual’s right to access information freely.

Censorship Mechanism

Internet filtering or censoring refers to the act of restricting access by internet users to material that is considered dangerous or in some way offensive. Censoring is achieved though filters and firewalls which are configured to prevent access to certain material or prevent the publishing of certain content.

Censorship in the internet can also occur in the traditional sense of the word where material is removed from the internet to prevent public access. In addition to universal censorship, material can also be restricted to particular audiences based on attributes such as user age or occupation.

Many governments have censorship policies in place to help control access. However, effective censorship is yet to be achieved since the internet is rapidly growing and changing. Different devices and networks are occurring and technologies such as social networking are changing the manner in which people access the internet.

Internet filtering is conducted on a number of unique levels. The most pervasive filtering occurs at the Government level. The Information and communications ministry of the respective country does this filtering.

The state dictates the kind of websites that its citizenry can have access to and deny access to websites that are deemed dangerous or objectionable. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Syria regularly engage in this government level blocking. The governments cite security concerns and decency violations as the major reasons for preventing their citizens from accessing numerous sites.

Another level of blocking is the Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) level. ISPs typically provide filtering and blocking services to their clients either on client request or universally. The ISPs that provide universal filtering usually do this at the suggestion of governmental agencies in the country. Kuwait, Singapore, and Malaysia ISPs provide filtering and blocking services at the request of the government.

ISPs in some countries such as the US and most European countries let their clients chose if they want filtered or unfiltered internet services. However, most ISPs prevent their users from using legitimate privacy and anonymizing tools since such tools will render filtering systems useless and enable the user to access censored material.

Filtering can also take place at the Organizational level where individual organizations enforce some form of internet filtering on their LANs and intranets. Organizations such as banks, schools, and hospitals conduct internet filtering for reasons such as increasing worker productivity and preventing access to inappropriate material.

For example, filtering ensures that workers do not make use of the internet for leisure surfing or chatting during work hours. The final level of filtering is the Parent’s level and individual parents implement this level.

This level of filtering is necessitated by the lack of trust by parents on the ability of the government or ISPs to filter out all the information they consider inappropriate for their children. Parents therefore use commercially available filtering software to further restrict access to the internet by their children.

Censoring Technologies

Censorship implementations have acquired a wide market as the need for censoring by governments, organizations, and parents increases. Censorship techniques can be categorized as hardware based and software based. For filtering and blocking internet content, software based technologies are employed.

Hardware based technologies on the other hand are used to classify network traffic and perform inspection on packet headers in order to deduce the content of the traffic.

As of yet, the perfect Internet censor software has not been developed and the censorship software used experience some errors. Even so, the censor software in today’s marketplace is able to meet majority of the needs of the government sector, organizations, and parents. There are three components to internet censorship and this are: social, political, and technical.

These components sometimes interact with each other and they can be used concurrently for higher effectiveness. For example, authoritarian regimes use highly advance technologies, social conformity though the threat of harsh punishment and political philosophy to foster acceptance of the imposed censors by the population.

These three components must be dealt with in order to counter internet censorship. Anti-censorship proponents must deal with the technological, social, and political structures in order to defeat internet censorship.

The filtering and blocking process is hidden from the public and people are not made aware of what type of content is blocked. Because of this, filtering technologies are susceptible to the problem of over-blocking or under-blocking.

In over blocking, the filtering technology employed blocks out content that it is not configured to allow the user to access. In under blocking, the filtering mechanism fails to block out material that is supposed to be filter out.

The worldwide growth in internet access and usage has been accompanied by a steady rise in internet censorship. While there has been a steady increase in internet censorship since 1993, the most dramatic increment was observed between 2007 and 2010.

Government level censorship has been the most significant with authoritarian regimes such as China, Cuba, and North Korea conducting the most pervasive internet censorships.

China has established herself as the country with the most sophisticated internet censoring technology. Other authoritarian governments have therefore tried to implement the methods and policies used by the Chinese in their attempt at controlling access to information on the internet in their countries.

However, authoritarian countries are not the only ones engage in internet censorship. The world’s leading champion of democracy, the United States, also engages in this activity. The government is allowed by the Supreme Court to censor certain material that is not protected by the First Amendment.

This includes material that is meant to incite lawlessness, defamatory material, and obscenities such as child pornography. The government is also authorized to keep material that it deems important for national security secret.

In the Middle East countries, most of the blocking and filtering is done on political, cultural and religious considerations. The religious considerations are included since most of the countries in the region have Islam as the predominant religion.

To implement this censorship, most of the ISPs in the region make use of commercially available filtering software mostly obtained from the US. Secure Computing and Websense, which is a US company, provides most of the filtering solutions used by the Middle East ISPs.

Considering the prevalence of internet filtering, a number of studies have been undertaken to help quantify the instances of censorship. Dievert et al have engaged in the most insightful study on global internet filtering. In another related study, users are allowed to report allegedly blocked websites and this user-generated data is used to come up with a database indicating which sites are blocked and by which countries.

Filtering Techniques

The filtering tools employed make use of a number of techniques to carry out the blocking.

TCP/IP Header Filtering

This is the most common filtering technique and it is also known as blunt filtering since it blocks out entire sites based on their IP address. The IP (Internet Protocol) is a basic protocol used by all communicating devices to direct their traffic across the internet. The TCP/IP Header filtering examines the sender and recipient information contained in an IP packet.

IT then blocks out all packets from an IP address that is known to contain objectionable material. A major advantage of this technique is that it is cheap and simple to implement since one only needs to highlight the IP addresses that need to be blocked out.

However, this method suffers from a significant disadvantage since it leads to over-blocking when a single IP address that contains useful and valuable content is blocked out since it also hosts a site with objectionable content.

TCP/IP Content Filtering

This technique is also called the Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and as the name suggests, it involves inspection of the packet more thoroughly than simply inspecting the packet header. As such, the approach does not block out entire web addresses or web sites, instead, individual pages that contain the objectionable material can be removed.

This approach avoids the problem of over blocking since only packets that contain prohibited keywords are filtered out while the rest are displayed to the user. However, this method requires specialized hardware, which makes it hard and costly to implement. Significant computation power is also required to inspect all the data packets which makes the computational cost of this method very high.

DNS hijacking Filtering

Domain Name System hijacking allows the ISP to implement filtering by blocking out the name of a site. As opposed to filtering an entire IP address, this method allows a targeted website to be blocked. The ISP relies on a list of blacklisted domain names mostly provided by the government to implement this filtering. The ISP then configures its DNS server to refuse requests for those domains by the user.

A major demerit of this method is that it can be bypassed easily by someone with technical knowhow. In addition to this, blocking out entire domains restricts access to pages within those domains that might have valuable information that is not objectionable.

More sophisticated implementations of DNS hijacking filtering (that make use of keywords or URL filtering) are being implemented to address this problem and therefore increase the accuracy of this filtering technique.

Keyword Filtering

This method blocks access to websites based on the presence of banned words in the URL. The method also blocks search engine searches that contain certain blacklisted words. Many countries are using this technique more frequently due to the blocking power that it presents. Due to the processing power required, it is the most expensive technique to implement.

HTTP Proxy Filtering

This method makes use of the web proxies that are used to reduce bandwidth requirements and therefore improve performance. This is achieved by storing copies of recently downloaded HTTP content so that any future request for the same content do not result in the web server responding with the same content repeatedly.

By using the filtering proxy, requested destined for or coming from banned sites are prevented from reaching the caching proxy. This provides a thorough filtering comparable to the TCP/IP content filtering without compromising the efficiency of the network.

Other Approaches

In addition to the mentioned methods of blocking and filtering, other means can be used to regulate web content. Governments can ask that entire websites be removed therefore making the content of the site inaccessible to all.

The state can also tamper with the connectivity to a particular website making it too slow therefore dissuading users from visiting the website. Such methods might be used in conjunction with the software tools filtering to achieve the desired censorship.

Blocking and Filtering Tools

Bess

Bess is a filtering tool that was created by N2H2 and later acquired by the Secure Computing Company which merged the tool with another one of its filtering tools, the SmartFilter. The tool is available commercially as SmartFilter, Bess Edition with a target market of schools. The tool uses sophisticated technology and human review to reduce the errors that general keyword blocking methods cause.

The tool makes use of human reviews to allow access to sites with material on breast cancer and sex education. Such sites would be blocked out by most tools that use “keyword blocking” due to the presence of the word “sex” and “breast”.

Bess had 38 blocking categories (as of 2006) and its elaborate blocking allows access to websites that might have educational value but contain pages that have content that is unsuitable for children. However, the tool has engaged in pervasive blocking by filtering out some websites that are against censorship as well as websites that report on filtering software.

ClickSafe

This filtering tool makes use of content-based filtering and it relies on keywords and graphic recognition to filter out objectionable material. The tool is especially efficient in filtering out pornographic content and it is able to accurately differentiate appropriate from inappropriate content even if key words such as “sex” or “breast” are used in both instances.

For increased security, the list of prohibited sites is made invisible and the user does not know of these sites. However, users are allowed to check if a website is included in the prohibited list by keying in the full address to the site. In addition to the objectionable content blocked out, the company also blocks out sites that have information or programs that can be used to compromise blocking software.

The accuracy level of ClickSafe is impressive with the tool being able to block pornographic sites 90% of the time. Instances of over-blocking (where “good sites”) are blocked out stands at only 5-10%.

Conclusion

The internet is turning into a heavily regulated sphere and internet censorship can only be expected to increase with coming years. This paper has reviewed the censorship mechanism used and proceeded to highlight the technologies employed to achieve censorship.

The filtering techniques used and their merits and demerits have been discussed. Filtering and blocking tools will continue to experience high use as the internet becomes even more controlled in the future.

Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering

Introduction

After the development of the internet, it became quite easy for people to access information through technology. As more users started using computers and the internet, the platform became a viable avenue for people to do business, express their opinion, and upload data for public access. This development has led to the development of some websites containing undesirable content; thus, the necessity for internet censorship.

Internet censorship entails the development of firewalls that hinder access to websites with undesirable content. Internet censorship may also entail prohibiting people from uploading selected information to the internet. Internet censorship is a common phenomenon in the current world, and it is inspired by governments, organizations, and community efforts to ensure that people do not have access to sensitive or explicit information.

Internet censorship may also be applied by individuals for self-regulation to evade some issues inspired by religion and culture. Many governments across the world have implemented internet censorship over the past decade to eliminate the access of specific web content by citizens.

While some people show their support for internet censorship, others have condemned it, claiming the denial of their rights to access the targeted information. There are different types of internet censorship, and they are categorized according to the technicality of the process. This paper looks into internet censorship with a close focus on technical censorship, which comprises of blocking and filtering.

Blocking

Internet blocking is one of the technical measures used by the government, organizations, and computer owners to restrict access to specific information. Restricted information is normally against the laws and values of society.

Internet blocking operated based on denying access to certain websites for specific internet protocols (IP). Websites of specific shared hosting servers are blocked by the government and organizations, and the citizens have no access to the websites hosted by the blocked servers (Bee Think IP Blocker: Block Unwanted IP addresses based on IP blocklist, 2014).

The blocking process entails the use of software that identifies the IP address of the clients trying to view the prohibited websites, and it blocks their access. Internet blocking may also be used to hinder some internet users from uploading data and information to specific websites. This process also uses IP addresses to identify users, and it only allows specific IP addresses to upload data and information. This approach is used by most companies on their websites to enhance security (Frew & Sessano, 2009).

Internet censorship through blocking is subject to over-blocking and under-blocking. Over-blocking occurs when the government or organizations block more websites than intended in their quest to limit access to some websites. Most internet blocking software does not have the option of selecting specific domain names for websites. They just block every domain name from the hosting server, and this may result in blocking some harmless sites.

It is also possible for some blocking software to block websites with explicit content (How to, 2014). This selective blocking leads to easy access to unwanted information, which should be blocked. Some countries have embraced over-blocking the internet as a measure to ensure the people have no access to obscene content.

Internet censorship through blocking is used in the United States to ensure children do not have access to websites with obscene content. This internet censorship is a provision of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (Children’s Internet Protection Act, 2014). The Act compels the authorities to ensure that internet surfing for children is limited to access to educational content exclusively. It is the obligation of the government to protect the innocence of the children through internet censorship.

Filtering

Filtering is also a technical method of internet censorship. The most common method of filtering is the uniform resource locator (URL) filtering process. The process entails scanning the URLs for specific words and blocking the ones containing specific words. This method is not secure for internet censorship because internet users can easily bypass it through a virtual private network (VPN) (Tyson & Crawford, 2014).

Packet filtering is also a common method of internet censorship, and it entails blocking TCP packets containing a given number of restricted words (PF, 2014). This approach is a realistic and practical internet censorship method because it avoids the restriction of harmless websites.

Filtering is a softer approach to internet blocking. Internet censorship through filtering is the best method of ensuring the public enjoys the freedom of access to information while restricting the nature of the content people can access. The internet is currently filled with explicit content, and it is the obligation of the government to protect people from it (Cho & Feldman, 2001).

Issues with blocking and filtering

While many people believe that blocking and filtering websites containing explicit and obscene content is appropriate, critics believe that internet censorship is inappropriate (Qazi, 2014). Critics of internet censorship claim that the process of blocking or filtering websites through hosting servers leads to the blockage and filtering of some helpful websites (Deibert, 2008). It is also apparent that the government may use internet censorship to gag certain news websites as the case is in China.

Internet censorship is a sensitive area that needs to be addressed through laws that do not offend the fundamental right of liberty and access to information (Wagner, 2010). In some nations, the government uses internet blocking and filtering as a method to hide information from the people.

Internet censorship can be used as a weapon to keep the truth hidden from people in a society. China actively censors the internet for civilians to block their access to different websites. Accessing selected websites is illegal in the country, and some people are even compelled to conduct self-censorship.

Conclusion

Internet censorship is implemented by the government, organizations, and respective internet users on their personal computers. The process of internet censorship can be conducted through a technical approach based on blocking and filtering. Internet blocking is an effective way of ensuring everyone in a selected society does not have access to websites with undesirable content. Filtering is a technical method of internet censorship, which is based on TCP packets.

The software used for filtering evaluates the contents of the URLs and decides whether to block the website or to provide access. There are many issues associated with internet censorship, mainly because it can be used to hide relevant information from people. For instance, the situation in China reveals that the government is concerned about the amount of political information available for the people. In such a case, the government uses internet censorship as a weapon to block the society from accessing helpful information.

References

Bee Think IP Blocker: Block Unwanted IP addresses based on IP blocklist. (2014). Web.

. (2014). Web.

Cho, C., & Feldman, A. (2001). Internet Filters. Massachusets: Marjorie Heins.

Deibert, R. (2008). Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Massachussets: MIT Press.

Frew, R. M., & Sessano, N. A. (2009). Survival-Enhanced 6th Edition: A Sequential Program for College Writing. Michigan: T.H Peek Publisher.

How to: Restrict Site Access by IP Address or Domain Name. (2014). Web.

. (2014). Web.

Qazi, U. (2014). The Internet Censorship Controversy. Web.

Tyson, J., & Crawford, S. (2014). . Web.

Wagner, M. (2010). . Web.

Internet Censorship in Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Saudi Arabia leads other Arab countries in internet censorship by blocking website content from pornography, politics, entertainment, humor and religion among others (Black 203). Internet is heavily censored using “sophisticated” filtering system run by Internet Services Unit (ISU) that is based at the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh.

Western country companies such as Secure Computing and Webscenes, which come from countries that do not censor internet, mainly provide the software for internet filtering. The idea is to block “immoral” websites to protect the society, but Stein says that this apparently sophisticated filtering system is quite easy to dodge by using proxy servers.

This censorship came into effect in 2001 after the Council of Ministers passed resolution banning internet users within the country from publishing or accessing certain materials on the internet. The censorship is charged to the ISU, which, manage the high-speed data links connecting the country to the rest of the world (Global Internet Freedom Consortium 6).

The users in the country subscribe to local service providers who in turn get this connection from the ISU approved central proxy servers. What happens when a user requests a URL address that is blacklisted in the country is that, he/she is directed to a page informing him categorically that access to the page requested is denied, and the government-filtering regime is explained and the reasoning behind it?

It also gives a chance to the user to request that some sites be blocked or unblocked (Boler 113). This paper will discuss what different writers think about internet censorship in Saudi Arabia and what people in this country respond to the filtering.

This topic is appealing to me in that internet use has revolutionalised the world with information at the fingertips and communication has become extremely easy and efficient. My interest is in understanding internet censorship and the rationalization behind it and the implication to freedom of speech. My assumption is that internet use in Saud Arabia is only restricted in matters of pornography. The research question is to establish the scope of internet filtering in Saudi Arabia.

Scope of censorship

Jonathan Zittrain discusses the scope of internet censorship in Saudi Arabia and Benjamin Edelman, professors at Harvard Law School, in their report ‘Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia’ published in 2004 by the Harvard Law School.

The report discusses the results of a survey carried out by the Harvard Law School to empirically, determine the scope and invasiveness of internet filtering in Saudi Arabia by attempting to access around 60,000 web pages on different topics that have been prelisted (Zittran and Edelman 341). The authors found out that, 2,038 pages in their list are blocked and covers topics that include religion, health, education, reference, humor and entertainment.

The authors contend that their list of blocked pages in the country is not a perfect representation of content blocked and, therefore, drawing a clear conclusion about the Saudi blocking system is not possible. Zittrain and Edelman say that internet filtering is done by the ISU, a government outfit that implements internet filtering as outlined by the 2001 Council of Ministers Resolution.

Local internet service providers connect to the international internet through a Central array of proxy servers, which are under ISU. If a user, requests a blocked page, the ISU administrative web informs him that access is denied on that page, and reasons for doing this are stated.

These are based on Qur’an stipulation of preserving Islamic values by filtering, materials that contradict to Islamic beliefs and culture. In addition to sexually explicit material, ISU web list other prohibited material on drugs, bombs, alcohol, gambling and material that insults Islam religion and Saudi Arabia laws and regulations. Apart from sexually explicit material, the authors say that blocked materials are blocked on the direction of the security bodies in the country.

Among the 2038 blocked pages the authors established, 246 of them were on religion, 31 on health and specifically on drugs and abortion, 81 on humor, 251 on entertainment that is music and movies, 13 related to the gay community and 28 relating to swim suits, lingerie, modeling and other non pornographic human images. Other pages blocked were on Middle East politics, organizations, or groups, those containing hostile coverage of Saudi Arabia (Boler 98).

In addition, services on circumventing filtering restrictions, sites on information concerning women, some education and reference materials and of course pornography. This source was able to answer my question on the scope of filtering and the stakeholders involved. In addition, the materials blocked that are not only about pornography and religion but also a wide array of materials on some topics that are helpful to a society. The question that remains is how Saudis think of this and whether there ways of circumventing this filtering.

Jennifer Lee, reported in The New York Times, in her article Companies Compete to Provide Saudi Internet Veil” published in November 19, 2003. She discusses the scope of internet censorship in Saudi Arabia. Lee reports of the competition by US companies to provide Saudi Arabia with software that blocks access to websites, which the government deems inappropriate for its users.

She quotes several software companies response to the war to win Saudi Arabia censor contract. She says that Saudi Arabia block pornographic sites that are making powerful business in uncensored countries around the world. Others that are blocked are those security agencies feel are sensitive for political or religious reasons. Once, the government buys the software, it customizes it completely. The company providing it has no control over how it is used.

Lee continues to say that Saudi Arabia is the most active user of censorship among the Muslim countries where it uses a Royal decree to channel all public internet traffic to and from the country through a single control center, ISU. Among the blocked website are Committee for Defense of Human Rights in the Arabian Peninsula and the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. Those sites, which provide the history of the country and with mild political connotations, are blocked.

The people of Saudi Arabia respond to internet filtering by dialing up foreign internet service providers, use websites that hide the user’s identity or circumvent the filtering by using pseudo names in websites that are also circumventing the filtering system. It is no wonder that together with Egypt the country has the highest number of blogger many of them women using pseudo names. Lee reports that an official, Dr. Hajery, says that some Saudis are instrumental in the blockage of sites by reporting them to the ISU.

He says that his staff receives around 500 suggestions a day and around 100 requests a day to remove from the black list for wrong characterization but in many cases, this is not granted, as there is no mechanism for compelling the government to do so (Stein 118). This article has shed light on my assumption that human rights groups’ sites are blocked and Saudis are not allowed to engage on political debates online since these blogs are blocked.

The article further proves that the country deeply censors its internet and media in general for society’s sake yes but also for political reasons. The question that arises is whether keeping people ignorant is helpful to the society in the sense “what you do not know will not hurt you” or simply it is a selfish way of controlling people opinions by the government. Lee articulates most of the things outlined by Zittrain and Edelman.

Conclusion

The authors of the sources above are trying to establish the scope of internet censorship in Saudi Arabia. They agree that internet filtering to block pornographic sites and politically charged websites is suitable for a society and national security.

However, what has been implemented by Saudi Arabia clearly goes beyond the need to protect society from sexual exploitation and security interests (Stein 217). The contentious issue here is that Saudi Arabia is curtailing the freedom of speech among its population and wants its population to remain ignorant which goes against human rights, which are universal.

The ordinary Saudis think that their government is protecting their social and cultural values, and from insecurity, that is why they report sites for blocking while many others still to access the blocked sites and contribute views through pseudo names. What the Saudis do not consider is that the government is curtailing their freedom of speech and information. What the stakeholders here have in common is protecting their won interests (Lee 59).

The government wants no dissent from the people, while the companies want to make money from their software, and the difference is in their values. My assumption have now been proven that indeed internet censorship is deep in Saud Arabia, and goes beyond protecting society values to violation of human rights. Now that, I have established the scope of internet censorship, the question is whether this has been effective and how effective that is.

Reference List

Black, Ian. “Saudia Arabia leads Arab regimes in internet censorship.” The Guardian 30 June 2010: 2.

Boler, Megan. Digital Media and democracy: tactics in hard times. USA: MIT Press, 2008.

Global Internet Freedom Consortium. Defeat internet censorship: overview of advanced technologies and products. White Paper. USA: Global Internet Freedom Consortium, 2007.

Lee, Jennifer. “Companies Compete to provide Saudi internet veil.” The New York Times 19 November 2003: 1A.

Stein, Sam. “Rick Scott tied to internet censorship in Iran and Saudi Arabia.” Huffington Post 12 May 2009: 3.

Zittrain, Jonathan and Edelman, Benjamin. Documantation of internet filtering in Saudi Arabia. Survey Report. USA: Havard Law School, 2004.

Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society

Introduction

The Internet is a worldwide electronic library with virtually any kind of information hence it is the greatest and most convenient source of information at the click of a button. Of all the diverse information available in the internet, some explicit information such as pornography, racism, ethnicity, crime and war are considered unethical and against strong virtues of the society.

The negative impacts of internet have raised many concerns over freedom of access and publishing of information, leading to the need to censor internet. Although censoring of internet can help in protecting virtues and culture, it is technically impossible, prohibits propagation of knowledge and against civil rights freedom of speech and press.

Against Civil Rights

Internet censorship is against freedom of expression. The United States government attempted to control internet in 1996 when they passed Communication Decency Act but the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that it is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment of the Supreme Court (Valdes Cortes Para. 7).

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the internet freedom deserves much protection as books, newspapers, magazines and even as a nude statue in a museum (Para. 1). Therefore, it is unconstitutional to censor internet because people have the inalienable rights of freedom of speech and press so long as the civil rights are protected for the interest of justice.

Ignorance and Misinformation

Since internet is the greatest source of knowledge, the censorship of internet denies people access to vital information required in order to acquire knowledge. Insufficient information in the current society will led to misinformation or ignorance that is quite unrealistic (Yee Para 4).

Misinformation and ignorance completely outweigh the negative consequences of the free internet; it is better to have options and choice on the kind of information than be ignorant and misinformed. Modern society is fighting to eliminate ignorance and misinformation that are key democratic aspects of an open society, free of deception and secrecy.

Internet censorship is a way of controlling the minds of people as they say knowledge is power hence, leaders who are in power wants to control and regulate information access by their subjects so that they can continue gain more power while the subjects become more ignorant on pertinent issues that affects their lives (Yee Para 6).

Internet has made it hard for leaders to guard selfishly the knowledge to be within their own reach thus they are making futile attempts to control the flow of information worldwide. Free access of information from the internet have significantly enabled people to gain more and more knowledge making them have informed decisions in the kind of information and challenges they face because ignorance is no longer an excuse of not making the right decision in life..

Technically Impossible

Internet information is so vast and diverse to the extent that it will be impossible to censor the information in it. Technically, due to the overwhelming data and consequent complex encryption protocols involved, plus other technical factors makes internet censorship impossible (Chapman 132). Internet protocols are designed in such a way to avoid or prevent blocking. Moreover, internet is very dynamic in that censorship will be as futile excise as chasing the wind.

Standardization

The internet has no boundaries unlike laws and legislations that are specific to a given territory. The Communication Decency Act left many questions unanswered; what is decency and who will determine decency? Diverse cultures in the world have different perceptions of what is ethical or not, what is decent or not, but a censor may have a different perception of what constitutes decent or ethical.

The diversity of cultures and legislations a cross the countries makes it impossible to have a standard internet censorship. According to the Americans Civil Liberties Union, internet censorship need to be put on the hands of the individual so that they can have autonomy to decides on the information they access or publish (Para 2).

Conclusion

Internet censorship is a noble idea of trying to conserve our cultures and traditions, but on contrary, we also need knowledge to eliminate ignorance that seems to perpetuate in this modern society. The positive impacts of free internet access of any information, outweighs by far its negative effects in the society.

Today, a society without access to information seems be in a dark world full of ignorance and misinformation that makes people behave as if they are blind to the current world issues that directly affects them. It is our inalienable right to access and publish information and the freedom of speech and expression are the integral aspect of information.

A democratic and prosperous society is based on the access of the right information used in the making of informed decisions a better society. The freedom to access information must be fought for, otherwise; people in the power will take advantage of our innocence and deny us the right to information that is necessary to rid of the ignorance in the society.

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “Censorship on Internet.” ACLU. 2010. Web.

Chapman, Gary. “Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints”. 1997. Greenhaven Press. Web.

Valdes Cortes. “.” University of Chile. 2010. Web.

Yee, Danny. “Internet Censorship: an Australian Press Council Seminar.” Electronic Frontiers Australia. 2010. Web.