Internet Censorship: Pros, Cons, and Free Expression Online

Introduction

The internet came to prominence as a tool and pursuit of the masses starting in the early 1990s. The capabilities, depth, and breadth of what the internet has to offer have increased exponentially over the ensuing two decades, greatly easing the spread of information (Palfrey, 2010). The ease with which people communicate and disseminate information has created cause for concern among many different parties who view this openness as a threat. That threat is perceived at multiple levels of society, from individual citizens all the way up to government regimes, and its nature ranges from concerns over online predators to national security. There is no clear-cut answer that applies across the board, as the subject can become very murky very quickly. This paper examines the relevant facts, and weighs the pros and cons of restricting online material and activity.

Pros of Freedom of Expression

One major benefit of freedom of expression is that it can send a beacon of hope and optimism to people living under oppressive regimes. Many countries regulate free speech and internet activity (Greengard, 2010). Although regimes such as China are diligent in suppressing what they consider threatening, many citizens still network and speak their minds irrespective of the potential consequences (Thompson, 2010). This regulation is the subject of widespread criticism, including derision aimed at Western companies such as Google that actively operate within China despite its censorship practices (Greengard, 2012). Search results on Chinese computers are often redacted, or users encounter a "page cannot be displayed" prompt (Roberts, 2010). Many observers question whether China even has the right to do this (Smith, 2010).

Another significant benefit of free expression online is that the web allows people to mobilize and organize around shared causes. A clear example was the massive campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States. Once people became aware of the law and its provisions, a broad coalition of individuals and companies waged an effective web-based campaign in opposition. Citizens were urged to contact their lawmakers and did so in large numbers. Legislation of this kind spurs rapid public action because it is widely perceived as authoritarianism (Calingaert, 2010).

Another advantage of the internet is the ability to speak one's mind and reach out to others while remaining anonymous. This capability is valued by many, including people who are concerned about being tracked online and those who live in fear for personal reasons — such as rape victims who wish to speak candidly without revealing their identity. While anonymity can certainly be misused, the ability to remain discreet and concealed serves a genuine protective function for vulnerable individuals.

A further benefit of freedom of expression is that it validates the founding values of many democratic nations. In the United States, for example, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, and any limitations on online speech are typically viewed as a potential violation of this right. Being able to speak one's mind with little fear of government retribution is widely experienced as liberating.

Cons of Freedom of Expression

A major drawback of freedom of expression is that once a statement is made or an image is posted on the internet, it is extremely difficult to retract. This was demonstrated by the legal case of an Argentinian woman who demanded that Yahoo and Google remove compromising pictures of her from their search results (Rosen, 2012). Once something is available for public review online, it is often available permanently. This permanence is not always negative — a permanent record can be valuable for prosecuting crimes — but many people view it as a serious problem, especially those who regret a momentary lapse in judgment and wish to "un-ring the bell."

Another significant drawback is that some content placed on the web is so vile and abhorrent to the vast majority of users that it must, in most people's view, be removed and prosecuted at every opportunity. Susceptible parties such as children are shielded from such material through filtering software at both the device and network levels. This filtering is broadly supported, though some detractors exist (Nantai & Cockerline, 2010), and questions remain about its overall effectiveness (Eneman, 2010). Some argue that education of online users is far more important than any technical screening (Essex, 2009), while others contend that comprehensive sex education is vital precisely because explicit content will inevitably reach minors (Penny, 2011).

Closely related to the issue of online child predators is hate speech. National and international groups devoted to perpetuating hatred exist throughout the internet. In the United States, organizations like the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan use the internet to spread their message, recruit new members, and solicit funds. Such groups typically invoke First Amendment protections. While criminally charging someone for hate speech alone often produces mixed legal results, many laws have been crafted to prevent hate speech in specific contexts — such as near election polling places. Furthermore, when a crime such as assault or slander is committed in conjunction with hate speech, the penalties are frequently enhanced.

A more controversial concern is the idea that unfettered online discourse is itself inherently corrosive. This is often observed in political discussions. Many in the news media have criticized the proliferation of blogs and internet postings about public figures — politicians, journalists, and celebrities alike. The debate pits free expression against laws and ethical norms concerning libel and slander. Politics is a particularly fraught arena because standards of propriety vary widely from person to person, and the vehemence that politically motivated speech can generate online is frequently extreme.

A related challenge is that the entity best positioned to regulate libel and slander is the government itself, which creates an inherent tension. Any crackdown on controversial speech will be viewed by some as justified and by others as oppressive overreach or a violation of free speech rights. Unfortunately, many statements fall in a gray area rather than being clearly illegal.

Some material arguably should not be readily available to the public at large. Websites that explain how to construct explosives are one example. Most people would agree that such content serves no legitimate purpose. That said, others argue that the mere existence of such information, or even someone viewing it, does not necessarily mean it will be acted upon.

Closely related to bomb-making content are websites that directly threaten national security. Individuals who frequent sites associated with groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah can quickly attract the attention of law enforcement. Providing material support — including financial contributions — to such groups places a person in a separate legal category from ordinary criminal or civil offenders. Many countries, including the United States, apply an entirely different legal framework to such activities. Freedom of association is generally valued, but when people openly communicate with the stated purpose of overthrowing governments or committing mass violence, ordinary protections around free expression are typically set aside.

A final drawback of unchecked freedom of expression is a lack of accountability. Whether or not a person uses their real name, a great deal of destructive content can be posted online — including compromising private images and sensitive personal information. Many such activities are not illegal, and arguably should remain legal given the risks of over-regulation. Nevertheless, the consequences of such behavior can be severe and long-lasting. Posting explicit or embarrassing photographs on platforms like Facebook, for example, can result in the loss of a relationship or a job.

Freedom of expression left unchecked is also seen as contributing to the coarsening of public discourse. Political speech is a prime example. The caustic nature of many politically motivated posts alarms many observers, yet there is little that can be done to stop it without infringing on free speech itself. While people can and should be held accountable for criminal behavior, those who carelessly or maliciously spread harmful information often face little meaningful consequence — a reality that many find deeply troubling.

Conclusion

As this paper has shown, the motivations behind internet censorship range from genuine concern for public welfare to the deliberate suppression of populations. The overall verdict on censorship, as reflected in the research, tends toward condemnation of broad censorship in all its forms and functions. Research indicates that while some degree of censorship is probably necessary, it must be implemented in a balanced manner — and less is generally more (Peace, 2003).

References

Calingaert, D. (2010). Authoritarianism vs. the internet. Policy Review, 160(1), 63–75.

Dibbell, J. (2012). The shadow web. Scientific American, 306(3), 60–65.

Eneman, M. (2010). ISP filtering of child-abusive material: A critical reflection of its effectiveness. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16(2), 223–235.

Essex, D. (2009). From deleting online predators to educating internet users. Young Adult Library Services, 7(3), 36–45.

Fish, E. (2009). Is internet censorship compatible with democracy? Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights & the Law, 10(2), 43–96.

Giles, J. (2011). Piracy bill walks the plank. New Scientist, 212(2841), 28.

Greengard, S. (2010). Censored! Communications of the ACM, 53(7), 16–18.

Greengard, S. (2012). Law & disorder. Communications of the ACM, 55(1), 23–25.

Morozov, E. (2011). Dictatorship.com. New Scientist, 209(2802), 30–31.

Nantai, S. M., & Cockerline, G. (2010). Internet filtering in schools: Protection or censorship? Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 7(2), 51–53.

Ozkan, H., & Arikan, A. (2009). Internet censorship in Turkey: University students' opinions. World Journal on Educational Technology, 1(1), 46–56.

Palfrey, J. (2010). Four phases of internet regulation. Social Research, 77(3), 981–996.

Peace, A. (2003). Balancing free speech and censorship. Communications of the ACM, 46(11), 105–109.

Penny, L. (2011). More sex education, please, and less censorship. New Statesman, 140(5075), 15.

Penny, L. (2011). Rise of the digital natives. Nation, 293(18), 20–22.

Roberts, M. (2010). China's media censorship. International Debates, 8(4), 17.

Rosen, J. (2012). The right to be forgotten. Atlantic Monthly, 310(1), 60.

Smith, R. (2010). Does China have the right to censor Google's internet search results? International Debates, 8(4), 2.

Talbot, D. (2009). Dissent made safer. Technology Review, 112(3), 60–65.

Thompson, N. (2010). China and the internet. International Debates, 8(43), 3.