A Brief Overview of Anti-Censorship Arguments

Internet censorship is often excused and justified for social reasons or political reasons. We should keep in mind though; do the ends justify the means?  There is an interesting philosophical debate about this that deals with rules in the virtual world v rules in the real world.  We created rules for the virtual world because we do not think that the real world rules will work in the virtual world. Therefore it is reasonable to create new rules that would never fly in the real world because the virtual world is an entirely new place untouched by the real world. How real can the virtual world possibly be? Proponents of censorship argue that because these rules are happening in a virtual space there is no real harm being done. How can you really infringe on someone’s rights of there is no physical place for this to happen. It is impossible to regulate speech in the real world, like profanity, whereas it only takes a few lines of code to prevent someone from saying certain things online.

Another argument against censorship is that the problem is not solved. It is merely swept away and put out of sight. While censorship does protect prying eyes from obscene content, it does not stop that content from being created. Allowing certain things online may actually help stop them form being produced. IP addresses and GPS can track down a poster and stop him from ever creating more illegal content.

            Censorship limits freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression. Everyone is entitled to free access of information and by limiting that we are encouraging people to be ignorant. People can then use this mass ignorance to abuse their power because citizens are more likely to be easily controlled. Censorship abuse is also a problem to consider. History has shown dictators to use censorship to make their image and their message more accepted by the public. The government should not be the end-all rule maker of what we are allowed to access and see, it should ultimately be decided by the people. This leads into the age-old question, who watches the watchers? Dictating what is and what is not allowed can make some people or groups have too much power, which leads back into censorship abuse.  

            The amount of money our government spends on surveying the Internet could be better spent on things we can physically see the result to, such as hospitals or better road care. Censoring the Internet is an exercise in futility, people can and will get around any blockages in their way. Therefore it could be argued that censorship is a needless drain on our resources. We could instead catch the people who make such content and stop them from posting more. Educating people on what is and is not appropriate may help led to a decline of illegal or immoral things being posted online anyway. We should stop sweeping away the problem by blocking it and instead address it to stop it completely.

Children and Censorship

One of the arguments against the abolishment of censorship is that censorship is here to help protect the children. I think that it is really up to parent’s to decide what children should and should not be looking at. Just because it is offensive for one person, does not mean we should block all potential viewings of that material. All computers come with a way to block out offensive searches and pictures, even the web browser Google chrome can block out searches with their safe search feature. There should be freedom of speech for everyone that is not dictated by the select few. Certain types of art can be offensive and were in fact painted in such a way to offend; but we do not cordon off museums. Parents have the ability to take their children with them if they want to see it. Guardians know what is best for their children and should be able to make that decision for themselves.

Don't Filter Me Project

The Don't Filter Me Project is a campaign designed to eradicate biased filters on school computers. Many schools have filters on that prevent students from accessing sites that contain information on LGBT rights, but do not block sites that are anti LGBT rights. Preventing viewpoint discriminatory censorship is extremely important to creating a freer and more open internet. This project has had several positive results, such as: some companies have agreed to place non sexual LGBT websites in a neutral category so that students may still access those sites. I would love to see something like this implemented in more than just the category of LGBT. Some schools block sites that can provide sexual health information because the filters claim they contain pornographic pictures. Needless censorship can harm kids more than it will protect them.

How I Would Change the Internet

The Internet is a fantastic communication tool that is easily accessible from almost anywhere in the world. However, there are certain drawbacks. While the Internet should be almost a free for all of ideas and communication, it is still heavily censored in man aspects. Media Now points out several great examples of what happens when the Internet crosses cultures. For example, France has no problem with breasts on the Internet, whereas the U.S. tried to ban them at one point. France also tried to ban Nazi items, which while they may be obscene to some it is hard to censor history. My idea of a perfect Internet would not have any censorship on anything (as long as the item in question is legal). America boasts that is a land of the free and we have freedom of speech and the press, but the U.S. still tries to ban certain things that are not 100% obscene. My internet would not needlessly censor.