Internet Censorship Essay, Research Paper
Internet Censorship
There is a growing debate about censoring the internet. Some people think that the
internet is protected under the first ammendment and cannot be censored. Others think
that some of the material that is on the net needs to be filtered and regulated. The word
censorship is defined as examining any material and prohibiting what is objectionable,
according to Webster’s II dictionary. Censoring the internet is a violation of the first
ammendment rights of every citizen in the United States. There are two general truths
that some people feel are attitudes towards censoring the internet. The first is that very
few people admit to favoring it. The second is that no matter who you are, in a matter of
minutes spent surfing the net almost anyone can find something that they find to be
offensive. In fact, some web surfers feel that the truly inappropriate things are inspired
by one’s own religion. For example, the Nurenberg Files website showed pictures of
mangled fetuses with the photograph, name, and address of some abortion clinic doctors.
If someone were to kill one of the doctors then an ‘X’ was put over their picture. This
site may not harm a child, but it seems that the focus today is on what is inappropriate for
the child to see. What about the adults? A site like this “clearly acts to corrupt and
deprave the adults who take it seriously” (Brown 48).
Another reason for not censoring the internet is the psychological effects that it can
have on a child. The filtering of the internet can tell a child that adults do not trust them
to surf the net on their own. This can lead them to believe that they can not make their
own decisions, and that a computer determines what right and wrong is. These filters
also give off the impressions that the communities are unsafe and the school officials
have not got the know how to do their job. Many teachers try to teach their students
responsibility. This can be done in many ways, one of which is through the internet
policy in our schools. By not censoring the internet and trusting children to make the
right decisions they can get a boost of self-esteem that so many children need these days
(Nellen 53). The filtering devices can obstruct a teacher in their quest to teach their
students. For example, Ted Nellen wanted to use to obtain some information on the
AIDS virus to help him teach his class. He tried to get information of the internet at the
school he teaches at and found that to be impossible because the filtering devices that
were installed worked (Nellen 53).
Another question that needs to be asked is who are the people that are determining
whether a site should be filtered or not? Just because they find something offensive does
not mean that there is not some one out there who would find the site unoffensive. These
people can filter what is put on the internet, so what is stopping them from doing this sort
of thing in other areas of American culture. Filtering the internet is not the answer to the
problem. Children and adults should be educated on what is right and wrong on the
internet and not treated like they are criminals (Nellen 53).
The software that is available for the purpose of internet filtering and blocking has
been able to block out certain web sites, but the web is always changing and the software
is outdated so fast that censoring that way is not worth it. Another way to censor is to
leave it up to the internet server. Even they cannot keep up with the growing number of
sites and monitor each and every one. These undesirable sites are not easily found unless
a specific word is typed in as a search engine or if the web site is known. However, those
who are for censoring the internet all have the same argument, which is that the obscene
sites will cause some kind of unacceptable behavior that will lead to violence. They feel
the software is a good thing even though it becomes obselete within a short period of
time.
When a person subscribes to an internet provider they are receive with a few
services. The first one is the use web itself. The user can see postings made by the
internet provider or by other people. A user can access any website he or she wants as
long as they know the website’s address. Another option that internet users have is the
ability to send messages across the web to another person by sending them an e-mail.
E-mail is included in most internet servers’ packages. The last major service that the
internet provides is Usenet News. Usenet News is where all the issues of today are
discussed by internet users. These kinds of things are what some critics want to censor.
E-mail is just like using the telephone and phone calls are not censored, so the internet
should not be either. If the whole story cannot be presented on the internet then the
Usenet News is useless because no one can get all the facts. The web itself is where
advertisements and offers take place and the only way to find these offensive sites is to
type in a key word that a child must already know. On the internet a user can put up
signs, banners, ads, displays, etc. of anything they want. The press always uses the first
ammendment as their justification for what they do and the internet users should also
receive the same benefits from the first ammendment as the reporters do.
There are three main ways that the attempt to block obscene sites from children. The
first is software that goes through a list of offensive sites and if the one using the
computer feels the site is inappropriate then the software will block the site. The second
is software that looks for words that could be connected to pornography or violence and
chooses when to deny access to the site. The last one is provided by the internet server
and blocks out portions of the site that are inappropriate (The Economist 84). However,
there are new sites popping up all the time and the software cannot keep up with the
growing number of sites. Children can just type in any word and get a whole list of sites
related to that topic. In some cases the blocking of anything to do with that topic can
prove to be anything but helpful. For example, America Online’s word-screening
software caused a forum on cancer to be shut down because the word “breast” was
mentioned. The White House web site was shut off because the word couple was
mentioned (The Economist 84). In addition, net minders like Surf Watch have no
official watcher to tell the users what sites are being blocked. Surf Watch seems to be
the leader in the struggle to keep inappropriate sites away from the eyes of children. The
installation is easy for anyone, even the computer illiterate. Surf Watch will block up to
sixteen categories in four main categories which are violence and hate speech, gambling,
sexually intended items, and illegal drugs and alcohol. Search Watch will not allow any
search engines that are considered sexually explicit. At the present time some of these
net watchers are not free and some people do not want to pay the money to own one. A
simple solution to the idea of censoring the internet for everyone with a computer to be
given one of these net watchers free with the purchase of a computer. The government
has a good reason to be involved with the controlling access operation because:
As networked digital communications become more prevalent, consumers will be
faced with justifying the purchase of a PC and modem or computer-powered
television. If that purchase comes with the added cost of access-control software,
there’s an inherent disincentive to embrace interactive technologies (Ratcliffe 16).
As long as the system allows the computer owner to change his or her list of
inappropriate sites, then it does not violate the first ammendment right.
In order to make this access control system available threre are a few simple things
that must be done. First, the access control API would need to be available for all the
web browsers and microsoft and apple computers. An ambitious company could
promote the API as freeware and allow for the option of add ons to this free piece of
software. However there is a problem, getting support for such a plan. Using the
International Telecommunications Union the United Nations could get a global license to
this kind of technology and distribute it through the International Telecommunications
Union for an annual cost. After this was all squared away the individual countries could
decide what needs to be installed and how to download additions to the program
(Ratcliffe 16).
A solution to this problem was presented in Paris in May of 1996. The meeting was
attended by a plethora of internet and computer firms. They decided that self-rating was
the way to go when it came to preventing the children from seeing inappropriate sites.
The Platform for Internet Content Selection was the name given to this idea and it allows
internet providers to put a rating on their contents using software that runs on either the
users on computer or doing it through the internet provider, which is more difficult to get
around. This allows for people to write what they want on the internet, but what they
write may not be seen as appropriate and will be blocked (The Economist 84).
Another argument for censoring the internet is the pornographic sites that are
easily accessible can cause children to view things that are inappropriate. In 1996
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act which included the
Communications Decency Act. The Communications Decency Act was intended to
protect young children from those sites which are not in their best interests to see (Lewis
114). However, there are problems with this law. The Telecommunications Act of 1996
does not successfully get the job done. Any child can still find material that is not meant
for them to see. The act says that adults can communicate using any words they want to
as long they are careful not to be accused of harassment. These words and phrases can
seem sexual to one person, but just casual conversation to another. The laws that were
made to protect minors from offensive material are very unclear. The term “indecent”
that was used in items aimed at protecting adults as well as children is unconstitutionally
vague (Sjoerdsma 301).Lewis says:
It is also stupid, because it assumes that Congress can regulate an international
computer network that is 99 percent private and that is composed of users who are
more than 50 percent non-American. It assumes it can outsmart my two teenagers
technologically, and it is offensive because it assumes that the Government can
provide a better moral compass for my kids than my wife and I are already
providing (84).
Lewis feels that the best way to prevent inappropriate material from being viewed on the
internet is to make all the users identifiable (Lewis 84). This idea may work for a while,
but false identifications ca
to do is look at all the under twenty-one people who have id’s saying they are twenty-one.
It would only be a matter of time before fake id’s would be available for internet use.
Edwin Diamond said “It doesn’t take a magnifying glass to find hard-core
pornography on the Internet…and since many youngsters can navigate circles around their
elders on the Net, some adults are in near panic” (Diamond 30). Pornography is defined
as material, films, printed matter, or devices dealing with sexual poses or acts considered
indecent by the public. Pornography is censored in almost every form of communication.
Movies, books, and even stores that specialize in sexual toys, movies, and magazines are
being censored in this day and age in stores that make a profit from selling sexual
material. Pornography is not something that a user justs happens to discover. The
pornographic sites need to be triggered by a key word typed into the search engine.
Children who find these sites have to have some knowledge of the topic of sex in order to
type in a word that would lead to a sexual site. Of course there are accidental discoveries
of these sites, but any further exploration is done by the user. Many people want to
regulate these sites, but they do not realize the amount of money it costs or the time it
involves in order to effectively censor the net. Moreover, studies have been conducted
that show that pornography is represents only a small portion of the entire internet traffic.
Steve Lloyd feels regulation of the net is not very practical because “It’s virtually
impossible to regulate the net because of the global nature of this communications
device. It would mean monitoring every phone call into the Internet which is impossible
to do” (39).
The internet was designed to be able to operate under any condition. The internet
service providers have found it very costly to censor portions of newsgroups without
blocking the whole site. Pornography is a very miniscule amount of the internet user’s
interest (Gidari). Gidari feels that internet regulation is a futile thought because :
Anything as massive as the global system of interconnected networks that is the
internet can not be “regulated” in any meaningful manner. The very nature of the
internet precludes its effective regulation. It was designed to be a self-healing
network of diverse platforms capable of opreating under the most adverse of
conditions – nuclear holocaust” (Gidari).
If what Albert Gidari says is true then the internet can not be censored because that
would defeat the whole purpose of its creation. The following editorial appeared in the
Knight Ridder Tribune News Service. These articles are right on the money as to why
the internet should not be censored. Here is the first article in part:
Knowledge at the fingertips. That’s the charm of the Internet, the global network of
computers that allows anyone with the capability, even a grade-schooler, to tap into
vast pools of information at any time.The Internet, indeed, may be the closest
society has come yet to free and equal access to information for all. The relative
ease of access is also the Internet’s bane. There is no telling the range of
information one could be exposed to or the nature of activities one could be drawn
into, knowingly or unknowingly. With children, controlling what they see once
they are on-line becomes a problem as well. Pornography on computer networks
and unsavory characters on chat lines have garnered much attention, but consider
the three eighth-graders arrested recently for allegedly plotting to bomb their junior
high school in the Syracuse area of New York. They gained information on
materials and how to build the bombs from the Internet, and police say they were
serious about following through. They had set off a test bomb in a field behind
an elementary school. As has been pointed out many times, an interested person
could gather the same information from a public library. True enough, but space
and money preclude public libraries from stocking every piece of available
information. The process of selection, based on the principle of community
standards and needs, imposes some limitation. Global computer networks bypass
even such minimal limitation. Being plugged into the global network is a release
from traditional barriers to knowledge, and with the vast pools of information
come multitudes of opportunities for misuse. Computer-inspired pranks and
outright crime, from murder to fraud, are as likely as the potential for beneficial
use. As the network industry matures, incidents such as the youngsters’ bomb plot
will continue to invite serious efforts to reduce abuses.
Provisions in the new telecommunications bill such as the ban against
pornography and indecent material directed at minors are one form of response. In
a free system such as the Internet, however, monitoring data from computers
worldwide may be next to impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy
the freedom that gives the Internet its value. Personal computers have brought
global links down to individual levels. In time, from their very usage, new
technologies generate new levels of public awareness and their own standards of
use consistent with the constitutional rights of all users. In that vein, the market’s
response in developing software allowing parents or operators to block access to
certain services is most reasonable and practical. The only guarantee against
egregious abuse of the global computer networks, in the end, is a well-developed
ethic of personal responsibility, in which users and those who provide the services
are mindful of the potential for mischief (Knight Ridder 212).
This article was provided as a way of showing the reader why the internet should not be
censored. The solution is not in censoring the internet, but in teaching children what the
difference between right and wrong is. Like the article says “In a free system such as the
Internet, however, monitoring data from computers worldwide may be next to
impossible, and strict content regulation would destroy the freedom that gives the
Internet its value” (Knight Ridder 212). The second article is also pro internet freedom
as well. Here is the article to clarify any misconceptions about this paper’s purpose:
Like the Maytag repairman in the TV commercials, Congress is itching to fix
something that isn’t broken: the Internet and online services. As part of the vast
new telecommunications bill, both House and Senate are on the brink of making it
a federal crime to expose minors to naughty words or pictures in cyberspace.
Double-clicking the “send” icon could become a dangerous act. Jail terms and
huge fines would be slapped on anyone caught “knowingly” transmitting indecent
material to minors, or to any freely accessible area of a computer network. Reports
from the online front indicate that dirty talk and sexually graphic images are far
less prevalent, or available, than the recent congressional lather on the topic would
lead you to believe. In fact, the glossy mags behind the counter at any convenience
store are probably more accessible to the young. So far, though, nothing has served
to turn back this movement. Never mind that the Justice Department insists
existing laws are adequate to combat illegal pornography, in whatever form. Never
mind that, given the global nature of the Internet, any attempt to enforce a national
standard of decency is doomed. Never mind that the whole push to set federal
government up as cyber-censor runs contrary to the prevailing philosophy: Get
intrusive federal bureaucrats off the backs of citizens and trust in the magic of the
free market to solve problems. The maddening thing is this is one case where the
profit motive “is” riding to the rescue. Ever since the alarms first went up, the
software industry’s wizards have been churning out programs that enable adults to
monitor and block objectionable material. Not even a flaming _ e-mail parlance
for a tongue-lashing _ from House Speaker Newt Gingrich has made much
difference. Like many folks, Speaker Gingrich regards the congressional
crackdown on the online world as an assault on every citizen’s basic right to free
discourse. Over the summer and in recent weeks, it appeared the House would
recommend far less intrusive measures than the Senate. But the push for more
reasonable steps such as online warning signs has faltered. What hope is there of
keeping cyberspace as free as possible? A presidential veto would be the quick
way; court cases and the inevitable discovery that the harsh restrictions just aren’t
enforceable would be the long, costly way. It would be better if a public outcry
convinced Congress now that its attempts to curb Net-surfing are about as foolish as
ordering the waves not to come rolling in (Knight Ridder 214).
The two of these articles were intended to be a supplement to the main idea of this paper.
They are two examples that further show why the internet can not be censored.
The obscene material found on the internet has caused some decisions to be made
about what violates community standards. A private bulletin board operator in California
was prosecuted in Tennessee for making some material available to a member of the
Memphis community. The operator in California was found guilty by the Memphis
judicial system. The jury ruled that local community were comprimised when the
offensive material was made available to the postal worker from their community. Even
though this sort of thing may be legal in California or on the web, the Memphis
community felt that this sort of thing was inappropriate. According to Harvard Law
School Professor Laurence Tribe, even with the ruling in this case “The question of
community standards hasn’t been adequately solved solved in any medium” (Quittner
56).
The internet should not be censored. There are many other ways to solve the problem
of inappropriate web sites on the internet and censorship is not the best one. Educating
people on the uses and misuses of the internet is one of the best ways to filter the world
wide web as well as others already mentioned. A small group of people can not be
allowed to dictate to the rest of the world what they can and can not view or express on
the internet.
Brown, Andrew. “The Limits of Freedom.” New Statesman. 12 February 1999. 48.
Diamond, Edwin. “Five Difficult Issues.” Technology Review. October 1995. 24-33.
Economist. “The Top Shelf: Internet Censorship.” The Economist. 18 May 1996. 84.
Giradi, Albert. “Bringing the Law to the Internet.” Time. January 1995.
Knight Ridder. “Policing the Internet: Can it be done without trampling individual
rights?” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Serivce. February 12, 1996. 212.
Knight Ridder. “Time to stop push to Censor Cyberspace.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News