Internet Censorship in China, South Africa, and the West
This paper examines internet censorship in China, South Africa, and Western nations through two contrasting frameworks: pro-Statist and anti-Statist perspectives. Drawing on scholarship covering China's strategic censorship, South Africa's hate-speech legislation, and Western pornography laws, the paper argues that the moral valence of censorship depends entirely on one's philosophical outlook. Utilitarians may justify censorship as a practical tool for maintaining social order and advancing state ideals, while those influenced by Platonic philosophy prioritize truth over political expediency. Case studies include China's keyword filtering and the arrest of journalist Shi Tao, South Africa's bans on hateful music, and Google's conflict with Chinese authorities over search result filtering.
- Introduction: Two Ways of Viewing Internet Censorship: Framework introduced: pro-Statist vs. anti-Statist perspectives
- Pro-Statist Arguments for Internet Censorship: Censorship as state tool to manage discontent
- Promoting State Ideals and the Case of China: Censorship enforces state values; Shi Tao case examined
- Anti-Statist Critiques: Censorship as a Barrier to Dialogue: Western pornography laws suppress open debate
- South Africa's Censorship and Freedom of Expression: South Africa's hate-speech bans threaten media freedom
- Business Consequences: Google in China: Google's conflict with Chinese censorship laws
- Conclusion: Truth, Utility, and the Censorship Debate: Utilitarian vs. Platonic views on censorship reconciled
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear conceptual framework early — pro-Statist vs. anti-Statist — and consistently applies it across all examples, giving the argument structural coherence.
- It draws on a diverse range of country cases (China, South Africa, Canada, the U.S., the U.K.) and integrates academic citations throughout, grounding each claim in secondary literature.
- The Google case study provides a concrete, real-world illustration of how censorship creates tension between commercial interests and state authority, adding analytical depth beyond purely political arguments.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a comparative analytical structure, using parallel pro and con sections to evaluate the same phenomenon (internet censorship) from opposing philosophical positions. This dialectical approach — presenting utilitarian justifications before systematically challenging them from a Platonic or libertarian standpoint — demonstrates how to construct a balanced argumentative essay that resists a one-sided thesis while still maintaining a clear organizing principle.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis introducing the pro-Statist/anti-Statist dichotomy, then devotes three body sections to positive arguments for censorship and three to negative arguments, each grounded in a different country context or case study. A penultimate synthesis section reconciles the utilitarian and Platonic frameworks before a brief conclusion restates the paper's central tension.
Introduction: Two Ways of Viewing Internet Censorship
Internet censorship in China, South Africa, and other countries prohibits real discussion from taking place regarding issues that affect the public. For instance, in China, certain keyword searches are automatically filtered out so that users cannot find the information they are seeking. While internet censorship may be viewed positively from one perspective — in terms of stemming the flow of child pornography, curbing false information, or putting a nation's interests first — it can be viewed negatively from another perspective, in terms of limiting the opportunity to inform public dialogue, promote the free exchange of ideas, or debate why one form of content is permitted while another is not.
This paper argues that internet censorship can be interpreted in both positive and negative ways depending on the perspective one adopts — whether pro-Statist or anti-Statist. In short, the pros and cons depend wholly upon one's worldview and philosophical outlook.
Pro-Statist Arguments for Internet Censorship
The first positive reason for censorship, as Lorentzen (2014) notes, is that "a partial censorship strategy" is an effective way for governments to control levels of discontent in their respective countries (p. 405). Lorentzen (2014) observes that this is a model applicable to China as it attempts to control its internet content, though he argues that all nations could utilize it, "permitting half of the discontent to be reported when discontent is high and all of the discontent to be reported when discontent is low" (p. 405). However, Lorentzen's main focus is on the utilitarian aspect of censorship rather than the Platonic aspect — that is, the need for civilizations to respect truth: authority without truth is bad for society, according to the philosopher. Modern philosophies take a more subjective view of truth and thus implement utilitarian strategies such as Lorentzen's in order to control or limit the flow of information. This can be good if it is geared towards supporting truth, but bad if it is geared only towards supporting the state's control without regard for truth. This perspective is therefore a pro-Statist one, which is why it supports internet censorship over freedom of speech.
Following this idea, the notion that states have a duty to monitor the exchange of ideas — as a principal authority of the realm — provides a second positive reason for censorship. A pro-censorship perspective would hold that the state is protecting itself against discontent and rebellion. This is good from a utilitarian perspective because it locates the common good in the preservation of the state. In places like China, where the country is "the largest Internet user of the world," controlling the flow of internet information can be critically important for the state to maintain its authority (Liang & Lu, 2010, p. 103). Monitoring the flow of information is viewed, from this standpoint, as a necessary good for the health of the state. It is also an "expression of power" that gives the state an important character, likening it to a parental unit that looks out for the well-being of the communities within it (Carr, 2013, p. 621).
Promoting State Ideals and the Case of China
Furthermore, as Guo and Feng (2011) observe, one needs to "understand support for Internet censorship" in the context of "the theory of reasoned action," which provides a rational basis for internet censorship in terms of promoting the ideals and agenda of state policies, regardless of what some analysts, like Drewett and Cloonan, argue (p. 33). This perspective asserts that internet censorship is good not only for controlling discontent and monitoring the flow of ideas, but also for promoting the ideals the state wishes to advance — such as respect for every community. By placing the priorities of the state above socio-political discourse, internet censorship in all places — whether China, South Africa, or the West — takes on the pragmatic dimension of being a practical way to enforce traditions and beliefs. In this way, internet censorship can be viewed positively because it stems the tide of non-traditional or "false" information and promotes that which the state deems good for society.
This perspective may be applied to the "crackdown" on Shi Tao, who was arrested for "sending an email to a New York-based Web site" that "included the text of a government warning that the return of a handful of dissidents who had witnessed the Tiananmen massacres might prove socially destabilizing" (Dowell, 2006, p. 111). Tao believed Western media would want to know this as an example of how controlling China is regarding its past and interpretations of historical events. However, from the standpoint of state utilitarianism — a more neutral term than authoritarianism or totalitarianism — this form of censorship is understandable and can be viewed in a positive light. China seeks to protect its image much like a corporate brand protects its own, and it seeks to promote an ideal projection of itself that its citizens can rally behind: it views looking forward rather than backward as a virtue in itself. The same logic can be applied in South Africa, where internet laws are beginning to crack down on "hate speech" in order to keep communities from being offended (Drewett & Cloonan, 2006, p. 68).
Conclusion: Truth, Utility, and the Censorship Debate
Thus, one can see how there are two ways of viewing the issue of internet censorship. One can see it from the pro-Statist perspective or from the anti-Statist perspective. Within these two viewpoints lies the direction one feels is best regarding questions of free speech versus hate speech, control versus stewardship, and the promotion of ideals versus honest recounting of history. Which view is correct may depend on whether one is a utilitarian or a Platonist at heart. The utilitarian views the issue as one of pragmatism — determining which policy produces the greatest good for the greatest number. The Platonic view looks at the issue in terms of truth: which system promotes the most truth. In the Platonic view, it would not matter whether one is pro- or anti-Statist, because internet censorship would be evaluated solely by the degree to which it elevates truth rather than serves the state. If the state elevated truth above politics, censorship could be justified. If it did not, the Platonist would oppose it.
In conclusion, states exercise internet censorship for many reasons. In China, South Africa, and even in the West, the impulse for censorship grows out of a tendency to protect state interests as well as those of the broader community. The opposing view holds that in controlling the flow of information, the state hampers freedom of speech and the ability to engage in open dialogue about history, morality, and public life. How one assesses this depends on whether one's philosophical outlook is utilitarian or Platonic — that is, whether one places the practical good of society or the pursuit of truth above all other motives. In the modern era, tension between these two outlooks remains acute, which is why the issue of internet censorship remains so contentious today, regardless of whether one is in the East or the West. The two viewpoints clash over which is more important to society — truth or the projection of state ideals, whether or not those ideals are rooted in truth.
Works Cited
Bitso, Constance. "Internet Censorship In South Africa: A Brief Exposé of Negative and Positive Trends." South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 80.1 (2014): 41–51. Academic Search Complete.
Carr, Madeline. "Internet Freedom, Human Rights and Power." Australian Journal of International Affairs 67.5 (2013): 621–637. Academic Search Complete.
Casavant, L., and J. Robertson. "The Evolution of Pornography Law in Canada." Parliament of Canada, 2015.
Dowell, William Thatcher. "Internet, Censorship, and China, The." Geo. J. Int'l Aff. 7 (2006): 111. Academic Search Complete.
Drewett, Michael, and Martin Cloonan, eds. Popular Music Censorship in Africa. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006. Academic Search Complete.
Guo, Steve, and Guangchao Feng. "Understanding Support for Internet Censorship in China: An Elaboration of the Theory of Reasoned Action." Journal of Chinese Political Science 17.1 (2012): 33–52. Academic Search Complete.
Liang, Bin, and Hong Lu. "Internet Development, Censorship, and Cyber Crimes in China." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26.1 (2010): 103–120. Academic Search Complete.
Lorentzen, Peter. "China's Strategic Censorship." American Journal of Political Science 58.2 (2014): 402–414. Academic Search Complete.
Mendelson, H. "Google in China." Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, CA, 2010.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.