Censorship – What and by Whom?

There are many articles and papers written about whether or not censorship is necessary, desirable or totally uncalled for on the Internet. Here we are going to go beyond that and try to get down to the questions of what we would censor on the Internet, and who would be responsible for deciding? These are questions that have to be answered if censorship becomes a reality.

The biggest argument in favor of censorship is that some material on the Internet could be harmful to our children, and it is our (adults) job to protect them. The Government of the US passed “The Communications Decency Act” (CDA) in 1996 which states, in part: “Whoever … uses an interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs … shall be fined under Title 1, US Code, or imprisoned for not more than two years…” This is plain silly. There are many flaws here. The entire act, as written here, is much too vague. What constitutes ‘community standards?’ Who defines ‘community standards?’ Does the local P.T.A. decide to tell everyone in the community what is offensive? A nudist colony may have far different standards than a Quaker village. This outstanding piece of legislature has since been declared unconstitutional, but new rules have replaced it. A new bill targeting material “harmful to minors” was passed by Congress. It is commonly known as CDA 2 because it tries to achieve an effect similar to the CDA in a narrower manner: it covers only speech on commercial Web sites. Although this applies to the USA, the article goes on to say that similar laws are being passed in the UK, Austria, Korea, Ireland and Australia.

This is supposed to protect our children, but there are parent groups out there who protest. The Families against Internet Censorship (FAIC) opens its web page: “Welcome to our home page. FAIC is committed to opposing censorship on the Internet. We believe that parents are the people best suited to decide what their children should and should not see.” There are several different programs available to help parents filter out material that is often considered inappropriate for children, i.e. foul language and pornography; however some unwelcome, obscene material can still slip through. These devices may help, but they in no way replace careful monitoring by parents.

Do we hold the Internet servers responsible for what they allow? Should they be censors? Since anyone, anywhere in the world, can post things on the Internet, such a task would be phenomenal, especially for some of the smaller Internet Access servers. They would have to hire people to do nothing but screen everything offered, a daunting task.

If we could decide who should be responsible for this censorship work, the question remains, what should they censor? It is easy to say that anything considered illegal should continue to be illegal on the Internet. However, some people think that this is already going too far. They believe, that all information is created equal, that information is endowed by its creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these is the right to be distributed via the Internet without governmental censorship.

If we are going to allow censorship to protect our children, what do we censor? Pornography is legal for adults, so is it right to censor it, just because our children may accidentally come across it in their cyber travels? I don’t think so. It is no different than a father having a ‘men’s’ magazine under his mattress. He may hope his child doesn’t find it, but there is no guarantee. He may use ‘filters’ such as a rule that no children are allowed in his bedroom, but that is not foolproof, as any parent can tell you.

What about other types of material? What is harmful? I, personally, am offended by graphic pictures of war-time violence. These same pictures can be harmful to my sister, who gets physically ill, while my brother views them as nothing more than history, which will hopefully teach us a lesson about the futility of war. Do we censor such material completely, because of people like my sister? If we do so, we risk losing material which could be beneficial for other purposes.

People complain that censorship violates their ‘freedom of expression’. Is that always a bad thing? Do we prevent them from spreading propaganda, such as the fact that holocaust never happened? Yes, I think we should. Is this because this type of propaganda can hurt someone? I don’t think so. I believe it is because the majority of people find this offensive, in part because it belittles the terrible experiences that many people still alive both lived through, and have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. This propaganda is untrue, but other things posted on the Internet, and/or printed in books can also be false. Censoring, in this case, could be based on the fact that the information could become harmful to certain groups of people, (non-whites and Jews in particular) if enough people with redneck tendencies read the material, believe it, and then proceed to act against these groups out of a misguided sense of justice.

In conclusion, it seems impossible to decide who should censor the material on the Internet, if indeed it needs censorship at all. It is just difficult to decide what should be censored. The FAIC family statement sums this up: “I oppose censorship in all forms, but beyond this, attempting to censor the Internet is an impossible situation. The contributors to the collective wisdom on the Net are international, and no matter how hard one tries to stop leaks, the information will get through.” It seems clear that we will never get everyone to agree whether or not censorship is necessary, but also that it will be just as difficult to decide who should act as the censors, and what they should censor.

by Teresa Newman

Censorship Debate, 2006

Language focus

1. Provide your explanation to the following words and word combinations:

– censorship is uncalled-for;

– patently offensive terms;

– P.T.A.;

– Quaker village;

– inalienable rights;

– cyber travels;

– futility of war;

– holocaust;