Internet Censorship Essay, Research Paper

When the government first developed the Internet for military purposes, they had no idea that by the time the nineties came around, nearly everyone in the world would have access to a world wide web of information. Now, the Internet has exploded into one of if not the best source of information in the world. Not only that, but it has become a place where people of all different races, cultures, and societies can go to converse on different topics. Best of all, they can converse about all these topics in the comfort of their own homes. Unfortunately, with the good also comes the bad. Pornography and social hate groups have taken over the net in some people’s eyes. The problem is, they don’t want the youth of America and the rest of the world to grow up in a society where such activities are deemed respectable. That is why the governments of the world now are taking strict actions to help prevent such material from overflowing into the homes and schools of the world. Filtering software is beginning to be implemented into many systems worldwide. Freedom of speech supporters feel this is too much censorship of the Internet. If this is so, however, just how much content restriction should be placed on the Internet? And what about the huge uproar over pornographic sites? Authors and activists around the world have written and spoken on all of these topics.

A major topic of discussion when it comes to censorship of the Internet is that of filtering software. When the Internet was first developed, there wasn’t an enormous problem when it came to children viewing problem websites. Soon, however, with the tremendous unknowing growth of “the web”, more and more parents wanted tools that would help to protect their darling child’s eyes from the disturbing pictures posted on personal websites. Filtering software, also known as parental control software, quickly came into the mix. By searching websites and search engines for certain key words, this software filters out websites that might be inappropriate. This type of software quickly became popular in school systems and public places such as libraries. Unfortunately, some people feel that filtering software isn’t the answer to problem with censorship on the Internet. Ted Nellen, a high school English teacher since 1974, feels filtering software is actually more of a nuisance than it is a help. In the school systems of today, he feels that filtering should be a job for the teacher, not a piece of software. He brings up the question of just what exactly does filtering software say about a school? Nellen feels it says that school is not trustworthy and that the teachers are incompetent. More than that, however, it makes the children of that school feel like they can’t be trusted. Filtering software actually prevents the learning process by blocking sites that might actually be used as an educational tool. For instance, Nellen gives the example that if he were trying to give a lesson on AIDS and wanted to use as much updated information as possible, he couldn’t access most of the sites that he would want to use because of the way the filtering software is setup. Software such as this doesn’t provide the independence that teachers need nowadays to teach on topics that change often. There is too much energy put into controlling. The true energy should be put into teaching about what is right and what is wrong on the Internet. In the eyes of an actual teacher, the best filters are not software but education, supervision, and trust (53). Others, however, like a recent Network World article take a different side. This article explains recent bill proposals that include requirements for schools and other federally subsidized organizations to use filtering software (4). Another article by Odvard Dyrli agrees with the fact that filtering software in schools should be implemented. Both these arguments, however, are quite irrational. A much more logical view by Dyrli feels that no matter what we try to restrict, there will always be a way to circumvent these (18). The views given by Mary D’ Amico seem to be the most logical in a way to deal with the problems of filtering. D’Amico feels that the parents of a child should be the filtering software. Systems administrators shouldn’t be the ones deciding what a child can and cannot see. The parents should be the deciding factor in just what is right and what is wrong.

Another problem that has been plaguing the Internet since it’s first days is that of freedom of speech. In fact, freedom of speech over the Internet is probably one of the biggest problems. The Internet has become a place where anyone can paste anything they want to say to millions upon millions of people and yet still have their identity somewhat protected. Just like any other topic, there are those that agree with the freedom of speech argument and those that oppose it. A recent article in Network World discussed how congress has tried to fight these problems. It appears that they want to initiate something called the Communications Decency Act II. This act would outlaw commercial content on the Internet that is unsuitable or harmful to minors. Two civil liberties groups, however, are at the frontlines fighting against what they say would hamper the freedom of expression we now have on the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Democracy and Technology are openly opposed to the bill. The ACLU is known already for fighting the first Communications Decency Act (4). Another article by D’Amico agrees with those statements made. There seems to be a general concern about the role a government would play in the rating process. The article gives reasoning that the government shouldn’t be responsible for what people see. Restrictions placed on such things as free speech would prevent some controversial topics from being discussed on the Internet. These would also turn the Internet into more of a place that is run by large commercial interests. Of course, the ACLU is completely against any and all of these bills or restrictions being discussed. Others on the topic, however, such as Joshua Quittner of Time, show the darker side of this argument. They show sides where racists and other such hate groups use the Internet as away of almost recruiting o voicing their opinions to the public. For example, a group called the Carolinian Lords of the Caucasus recently voiced some of their opinions in various popular Usenet groups. The CLOC has successfully emptied many groups that used to be quite popular. The CLOC may sound a little absurd and somewhat childish, but it is a growing problem for people that use the web and Usenet on a day-to-day basis. That is why Quittner feels there should be some sort of a code of ethics so to speak for the Internet (69).

Freedom of speech, however, has not been the only topic concerning our government and the Internet. Since the time when the Internet was initiated, it was often discussed what types of content restrictions would be applied to websites and who would be the ones to manage and enforce these restrictions. Should everything be allowed on the Internet by the government? If not, who should decide on what should be restricted? Should it be the job of individual Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or the job of the governments of the world? What about school systems? Should they be regulated differently than the rest of us? An article in Computing Canada titled “Freedom, Freedom” gives a good statement about the net and censorship. They feel that when it comes time for real censorship to be enforced, we shouldn’t leave to the technical people such as system administrators or the software they create (2). Others, such as D’Amico, write about governments and individuals that feel the system administrators and ISPs should play a part in the restriction of the Internet. At a recent Content Summit in Germany gave way to new ideas about content restriction. The Bertelsmann Foundation of Germany proposed a set of self-regulations for Internet content. One of these regulations was that there should be codes of conduct for each ISP to operate by. If these codes are broken, the ISPs will have to suffer the consequences. David Frith states in his article that Australia is already trying procedures such as this. Rumors had been set that ISPs in Australia that did not block certain restricted content would face fines for every day they ignored the problem sites. This, however, is not true. Frith goes on to explain that ISPs have no possible way of being able to restrict all the problem sites that come through their servers. Content restriction in Australia has already been a huge problem as discussed by Rachel Chalmers. The Australian government has made laws on Internet content that are stricter than that of Malaysia and Singapore. Only three countries, China, Burma, and India, have stricter laws that Australia has adopted. Civil Libertarians are appalled by the recently passed Broadcasting Services Amendment. This bill basically calls for a proxy server that would block all illegal content for the entire nation. Senators say that this will help protect the country’s citizens. Civil groups, however, see it quite differently. They fell now that Australia is beginning to look like the “global village idiot.” Not only that, but such things as this proxy server will cause a decrease in the performance of the country’s Internet. With every side, however, there is an opposite. The opposing argument in this case is that of John Barlow. In an article he has written for Time, he gives clear reasons why censorship is actually going to damage the Internet, not make it better. He tells an interesting story of something peculiar that happened in Munich, Germany. Apparently, a prosecutor there told CompuServe, a large worldwide ISP, that they were allowing Usenet groups with sexually explicit material to be viewed there. CompuServe replied by shutting down all Usenet groups that contained the words sex, gay, or erotic. Unfortunately, the way their system was set up, they blocked this from everyone, not just those in Munich. Anyone who had the CompuServe service was banned from newsgroups that were both legal and illegal. Germany did little if anything to stop this material. Anyone who wanted access to these sites in Germany would have had to change ISPs. This is when it became apparent that the Internet is just too widespread to be able to counteract all material that comes across. Yet still, the governments of the world are trying to pass bills and laws to control the content on the Internet. As Barlow states, the Internet is a place where any discussion can be made and nobody can fear that anything will happen to him or her. It is exactly reasons such as this that countries such as Germany, China, and the United States are joining forces to fight the net. There has already been a telecommunications-reform bill floating through Congress that calls for fines up to and over $100,000 for indecency on the Internet. According to Barlow, however, the first amendment already protects any type of indecent material (76). In the future, this problem will only grow and grow until there is little we can really do to stop the flow of material across the net. Whenever one site goes down, there will always be two or three or more ready to fill in the spot. That is why there have been plans for rating systems to be put in to effect. D’Amico writes about the Bertelsmann proposal in her article. This is a proposal that would involve a self-rating system where those that post the material are responsible for giving it a rating. This might also involve a hotline for people to call if they find illegal activity on the web. Net filtering tools would also be implemented but only voluntarily. Unfortunately, D’Amico feels that there are some holes in Bertelsmann’s proposal. For instance, the self-rating system is no different from going up to a guy on the street and asking him to rate what he says. Would something like this actually work and serve a purpose? In schools, Dyrli feels that all schools should initiate some type of an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). This policy, however, needs to be localized for different schools in different environments. Too many times, schools will simply copy another schools idea. This can’t be done when speaking of an AUP. Every school should have a different policy that applies to that school (18). I agree with Barlow’s ideas that censorship will only damage what we now have. Censorship will only prove that we can be completely controlled by our government. That shows we are weak and weak is something I don’t want to be known as.

Pornography has been a major issue of concern for the Internet ever since it’s beginning days. In earlier days, if you wanted to find something pornographic, you had to go to your local gas station or to a side of the road shack where most people feel only the most unmentionable of unmentionables would show their face. There wasn’t a problem with children purchasing or getting their hands on this material unless they happened to find it in their big brother’s room. The shacks, though some may consider dirty, wouldn’t dare let a child inside. Owners know enough to keep them away from such material. The Internet, however, has opened an entirely new doorway for pornography. No longer do adults have to risk being noticed by someone else at the counter when purchasing a pornographic magazine. They can now sit in the privacy of their own home and plug away at the computer. They don’t have to worry about their boss trying to shake their hand while holding a Playboy. This may be all well and good, but this brings up a new question for pornography. If adults can simply type up something and find pornography, why can’t a child? If a child tries to buy a magazine or video somewhere, they will always be turned down because you can actually see how old they are. What about on the Internet? What steps are being taken to verify age on the Internet? And where are these children looking up pornography? Is it just at home or is it also in public facilities? What about pornography in the workplace? Nellen gives the statement that pornography nowadays is still like it was before. Pornography is still considered an adult thing. This is an adult thing that will be done in private. He gives an interesting question as to why would a child who knows it is wrong risk getting caught by looking up pornographic material in a public place (53)? Various articles, however, will refute this statement. An article by Brian Krebs shows that libraries are actually prone to pornographic incidents on its systems. It is said that it is somewhat difficult to actually show just how many incidents there have been, but they are occurring and something should be done to stop them. The Family Research Council wants to restrict the pornographic sites on library systems. The American Libraries Association is completely against this proposal. They feel people should be taught about pornographic material, not simply restricted from it. Another problem pornography has run into is that of pornography in the work place. Should employees that view porn in the workplace be put on grounds to be fired? Some say they should. An article in Computing Canada titled “Nice Work if you can get it” speaks of an incident like this. Apparently, a 14-year worker, who will remain nameless, was fired because of looking up too much pornographic material. In fact, he was using the equivalent of eight weeks worth of work looking up pornography on the Internet (42). I agree with this course of action. If a person is losing work time and not getting his or her job done because he or she is looking up pornography, then there should be something done to stop that from occurring. If, however, there is no problem in their doing the work when this happens, I don’t see why it would be a problem. Everyday, a new pornographic site goes up. In fact, there is probably one that goes up every hour. What are we going to do to stop this type of thing from occurring? Well, there have been many laws that have tried to be passed to prevent this from occurring. The problem with these laws, however, is that they often counteract what is said in the First Amendment. For example, an article in Computerworld spoke of a new child protection law. The law was blocked by a federal judge in Pennsylvania who deemed it unconstitutional (12). Of course, more and more laws will come about that will try to do the same as this law. Will there ever truly be a law that can withhold the constitution and still be able to control some of what is on the Internet?

As it is apparent now, censorship over the Internet is a raging battle between activists and the governments of the world. Filtering software is a plus in many school and public facilities, but does it really serve the purpose that it should? Some say yes while others feel it is too restricting. Should the Internet be a place where you can find freedom of speech to its fullest extent? Some say yes while others find the problems that can be associated by hate groups and other such social problems. How many content restrictions should the government put on us if any at all? Some say there should be no content restriction set up by the government while others feel it is a necessity. And what about pornography? Pornography has been around for some time now. Should the new laws prevent it from being seen on the Internet? Some say yes while still others feel it has a right to be there just as much as someone fully clothed does. The war over the Internet will continue to rage on until there is a constitutional way to control it.

b4e

Barlow, John Perry. “Thinking Locally, Acting Globally.” Time. Jan. 15, 1996: 76.

Chalmers, Rachel. “Australia Close to Adopting Internet Censorship Bill.”

Computergram International. May 27, 1999.

D’Amico, Mary Lisbeth. “Is Internet Censorship in our Future?” Network World. Sept.

13, 1999.

Dyrli, Odvard Egil. “Does Your School have an Acceptable Use Policy?” Technology &

Learning. Jan. 1996: 18.

Elias, Thomas D. “A national code of morality?” The Los Angeles Daily Journal.

Apr. 2, 1992: 6.

“Freedom, Freedom.” Computing Canada. Jan. 20 1997: 2+.

Frith, David. “Australian Government Defends Internet Censorship.” Newsbytes. Jan. 11,

2000.

Hartocollis, Anemona. “How Small-town Standards can Block a Big-city Class.”

The New York Times. Dec. 15, 1999: B15.

Krebs, Brian. “Minors Access Porn Using Library Computers – Report 03/15/00.”

Newsbytes PM. Mar. 15, 2000.

Marson, Charles. “The Great Filter Folly. (internet filtering programs).” California

Lawyer. Jan. 2000: 52-53.

Messmer, Ellen. “The Decency Act is Dead.” Network World. June 30, 1997: 1+.

Nellen, Ted. “Internet Censorship is Both a Menace and Nuisance.” Technology

& Learning. Nov. 1998: 53.

“Nice Work if you can get it.” Computing Canada. Feb. 18, 2000: 42.

“Porn Law Blocked.” Computerworld. Nov. 23, 1998: 12.

Quittner, Joshua. “Homepages for Hate: A Campaign to Limit the Voices of White

Supremacists on the Internet has Defenders of the First Amendment Worried.”

Time. Jan. 22, 1996: 69.

Serra, Richard. “Art and censorship.” Critical Inquiry. Spring 1991: 574+.

Sullivan, Kathleen M. “Are content restrictions constitutional?” Journal of Arts

Management and Law. Winter 1992: 323-327.