Internet Censorship

Censorship is generally an evil and should be avoided where ever possible. Child pornography is an extreme example and there is already sufficient legislation to deal with those who attempt to produce, distribute or view such material. Other forms of speech may well be truly offensive but the only way a society can deal with them is by being exposed to them and combating them. Otherwise these groups are driven underground and become martyrs.

The distinction between censorship of the print and broadcast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It is quite possible that in ten years time people will be entirely reliant upon the internet for news and entertainment. The reason why the print media is comparatively unregulated is because we recognise that this is the primary means of distributing information in society. For this reason the internet must be allowed the same protection When Mill and the founding fathers of the US constitution spoke of the freedom of the press they were concerned about the primary and most powerful organ of the media at that time, the print press. Nowadays they would more likely be concerned with preventing censorship of the broadcast media and the internet which are our prime means of distributing information.

Even allowing for the extreme problems surrounding freedom of speech, internet censorship would be more or less impossible. Governments can attempt to regulate what is produced in their own country but it would be impossible to regulate material from abroad. What is the point in the USA removing all domestic reference to hardcore pornography when it is possible to access material from the United Kingdom or Sweden? It is also possible for citizens to produce material and store it in an overseas domain further complicating the issue. True freedom of speech requires anonymity in some cases to protect the author, the governments who have introduced ID requirements for internet use also deny many basic rights to their citizens. The internet allows citizens to criticise their government and distribute news and information without reprisal from the state, such a system clearly could not survive with ID requirements.

Internet Service Providers are certainly the wrong people to decide what can and can not be placed on the internet. There is already far too much control of this new technology by big business without also making them judge and jury of all internet content. In any case the sheer bulk of information ISPs allow to be published is such that vetting would be more or less impossible – are phone companies held responsible for abusive calls made over their networks? Were there liability for allowing such material to be displayed ISPs would inevitably err on the side of caution to protect their financial interests which would result in a much more heavily censored internet.

Many ISPs have shown themselves to be responsible in immediately removing truly offensive content where they have been alerted to it. What is required is self regulation by the industry recognising their responsibility to internet users but not imposing arbitrary and draconian restrictions upon its use. It is already possible for parents to use ‘Net nanny’ browsers that will edit out offensive and inappropriate material for younger users.