LEARNING TASK 11

WEEK 11

TOPIC
 INTERNET CENSORSHIP AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

TOPIC OVERVIEW
Internet censorship is the control of information that can be viewed by the public on the
Internet and can be carried out by governments, institutions, and even private organizations.
Censored content can include copyrighted information, harmful or sensitive content, and more.
People and organizations can self-censor for moral or business reasons, to meet societal
norms, or in fear of legal consequences. Government involvement in Internet censorship varies
from country to country. Some countries have moderate Internet censorship while others strictly
limit access to certain information, including the news.

DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this learning task, students are expected to:

1. Understand the problem of internet censorship around the world

2. Learn the Website Content Filtering Solution, Media regulation and internet censorship

========================================================================

PRE ASSESSEMENT 11

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING. USE YELLOW PAPER FOR YOUR ANSWERS.

1. What Is Internet Censorship?
2. What Is The Purpose Of Internet Censorship?
3. Access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right? Why?
4. Freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet? Why?

========================================================================
CONTENT DEVELOPMENT 10

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published,

or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and
organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to
conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.

The extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. While most

democratic countries have moderate Internet censorship, other countries go as far as to limit the
access of information such as news and suppress discussion among citizens. Internet
censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests,
and riots. An example is the increased censorship due to the events of the Arab Spring. Other
types of censorship include the use of copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene
material claims as a way to suppress content.
 Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. In a 2012 Internet Society
survey 71% of respondents agreed that "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet".
In the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic
human right" and 86% agreed that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the
Internet". Perception of internet censorship in the US is largely based on the First Amendment
and the right for expansive free speech and access to content without regard to the
consequences. According to GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use virtual private
networks to circumvent censorship or for increased user privacy.

HOW INTERNET CENSORSHIP AFFECTS YOU (+PROS & CONS)

What is the purpose of Internet censorship?

 Stop people from accessing copyrighted information

 Keep people from viewing harmful or sensitive content
 Control Internet-related crime
 Monitor the billions of people on the Internet
There is a range of reasons for Internet censorship and some are more well-intentioned than
others. There are use cases for protecting children from accessing sensitive information and
then there are authoritative attempts to gate a group of people’s access to important information
in order to control the narrative.
While we typically think of Internet censorship being controlled by governments, it’s commonly
used by other organizations like your Internet service providers to limit your access to certain
sites.

Global Internet censorship

Internet censorship is very different around the world, ranging from little to no oversight
to very pervasive control and surveillance. Let’s take a look at two countries on opposite sides
of the spectrum

Internet censorship in America

Internet censorship in the U.S is among the least controlled in the world.This is mainly
due to the fact that most online activity is protected by First Amendment rights. There is still
some surveillance and control when it comes to publishing certain content that may contain
libel, child pornography, and intellectual property. While the Internet in the U.S. isn’t highly
censored, it is highly regulated which leads to a lot of self-censorship in America.

Internet censorship in China

Internet control and surveillance in China is one of the strictest in the world. The Chinese
government blocks a range of websites that contain content related to various historical
independences, protests, freedom of speech, and pornography from its estimated 500 million
Internet users. There are also international media and news sites that are flagged, including
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Pros of Internet censorship

It’s important to keep in mind that Internet censorship has its advantages when used
with the best of intentions.

Create common-sense limits. Let’s be honest, there’s a ton of content on the Internet
that no one should ever see (re: Momo Challenge), and the concept of Internet censorship can
start a constructive conversation about it.

Stop fake news. If more content was closely monitored, it could cut down on the mass
amounts of fraudulent information including false advertising.
Curb access to harmful activities. The dark web is unchartered territory to the majority
of Internet users, but there are sites that are shockingly easy to find that are dedicated to illegal
acts like sex trafficking, child pornography, illicit drugs, and more.

Less identity theft. If there is less content on the Internet that requires identity
information, in theory, there would be less identity theft.

Cons of Internet censorship

There are some big disadvantages to Internet censorship that affect the way people
access information.

It restricts too much information. It’s entirely possible that real information is blocked
along with fake information, which opens up a large debate about what you should and
shouldn’t restrict/access.
Who’s in charge? How are rules defined? Are there checks and balances? Internet
censorship could quickly turn into a matter of opinion on what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Censors free speech. Internet censorship not only limits the content you can access
but potentially the content you post as well.
Cost. This kind of goes without saying but the workforce required, and associated cost,
to control and survey Internet users would be astronomical - most likely coming at the expense
of taxpayers.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a
community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal
sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any
act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that
"everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have
the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR
later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and
responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or
respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of
public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

17 FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROS AND CONS

When a person or a corporation has the right of the freedom of speech, then they are
able to express any opinion without restraint or censorship. This approach to society is a
democratic institution which dates back to the ancient Greek culture.
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech for all
people. Through this fundamental right, Americans have the freedom to protest, practice the
religion they want, and express opinions without worrying about the government imprisoning
them for criticism. It was adopted on December 15, 1971, as part of the Bill of Rights.
As with all modern democracies, even the United States places limits on this freedom.
There are specific limits placed on this principle that dictate what people can or cannot say
legally. The First Amendment does not specifically say what is or is not protected, but the
Supreme Court has ruled that there are some forms which are not allowed.

Here are the freedom of speech pros and cons to consider with this element as part of a
democratic society.

List of the Pros of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests.

When people have power, then they do whatever they can to retain it for as long as
possible. That may include a change in the government’s constitution, a shift in a company’s
Board of Directors, or the suppression of a minority group that threatens the way of life for the
people involved. Having the freedom of speech reduces this power because it allows individuals
to express criticism of those who are in power. There is no fear of losing personal freedom with
this right because your opinion contributes to the overall conversation.

2. Freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions.

When you have the freedom of speech, then the government cannot compel your
actions in such a way that you are required to speak a specific message. You stay in control of
what you say and how those words are expressed to the rest of society. Even if the government
attempts to alter your words to their advantage, you will always have the opportunity to address
the situation and correct the “mistakes” that others create in your work.

3. Freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas.

When a society operates in an area where free speech is given to all, then there is a
more significant exchange of ideas that occur. It becomes almost impossible for those who are
in power to suppress truths that they may not want to let out in the open. This process allows for
progress to occur because people can learn from the experiences and perspectives of one
another without worrying about the dogma of a “Big Brother” element in society, either corporate
or government-based.

4. Freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities.

When Edward Snowden decided to leak numerous state secrets to the press, he created
an interesting question about the freedom of speech that we are still attempting to resolve in our
society. Was such an action inflicting damage against the legitimate actions of the government?
Or was the information he offered a way to bring light to actions that the government shouldn’t
have been performing in the first place? It is tricky to find the line which exists when you must
protect information or protect others. Having this right in society allows us to at least have that
conversation.

5. Freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways.

Some people today might say that any speech which someone finds offensive should be
banned. Imagine then that someone became offended by the mention of same-gender marriage
– or the opposite, that they were offended by the mention of opposite-gender marriage.
Freedom of speech allows people to make up their minds about what to share with others.
Some people might be brazen with their approach, but that also means they might not have as
many friends because of their attitude.

6. Freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society.

When you have a chance to ask questions or share perspectives, then it creates more
learning opportunities in society. This right makes it easier for all individuals to make a new
discovery, suggest ideas, or exchange information freely without worrying about potential
political consequences. Even if some of the ideas do not work after you get to try them, the
process of testing contributes to the advancement of society as well. Thomas Edison famously
made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at the invention of the light bulb – each idea was a new step
toward success.

7. Freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society.

Some people use their freedom of speech as a way to incite hatred or violence. Others
use it as a way to create the potential for peaceful change. Providing facts to individuals while
sharing your opinion can persuade them to consider your perspective, even if they do not agree
with it at the time. When this is your top priority with this right, then you are less likely as an
individual to use violence as a way to create change. Although this process requires patience
from all of us to be successful, it will usually get us to where we want to be.

8. Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate.

Peter Tatchell is a human-rights activist who suggests that the best way to move forward
as a society is to challenge the people who have differing views. He told Index in 2016 this:
“Free speech does not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative
to challenge, oppose, and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by
good ideas, backed by ethics and reason, rather than bans and censorship.

9. Freedom of speech creates resiliency.

Although exposing people to hate speech is hurtful and creates fear in some individuals,
it also creates a resiliency in the debate. Instead of making your voice louder when confronting
these ideas, you are improving your argument. When this action occurs, the action of
observation and counter-observation make it possible to create an outcome where progress
toward the greater good occurs. When we lack tolerance for differing, uncomfortable opinions,
then it weakens the rights that so many people take for granted when there is something that
they want to say.

LIST OF THE CONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

1. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech.
 The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express
anything in a way that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is
unsavory, rude, or unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it. In the United States,
there are four forms of speech which are not protected under the First Amendment.

• You cannot make an authentic threat against another individual.

• It is illegal to defame others, including libel and slander.
• You cannot plagiarize any copyrighted material.
• It is illegal to share some obscene material, such as child pornography.

If you say something in the United States which insights illegal actions or solicit others
to commit a crime, then your speech is not protected by the First Amendment either.

2. Freedom of speech can spread false information.

Thanks to the rise of the Internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals
to spread false information and outright lies, but then still pretend that this data is true. Research
does not prove that vaccinations increase the risk of autism in children, but you will find
“information” online that says this is true. Even though it is protected speech when this right is
present, it could also lead to people getting or transmitting a preventable disease. In 2019, over
60 people in Washington and Oregon contracted the measles, with almost all of the cases being
unvaccinated children.

3. Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people.

People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When
someone commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech
to do so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome
through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online
radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes
individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

4. Freedom of speech creates a paradox.

When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it
really isn’t free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot say.
This freedom, and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions that are
distasteful to the majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

5. Freedom of speech can create a mob mentality.

In 2012, Oatmeal and FunnyJunk had a dust-up over the use of images that author
Matthew Inman did not authorize for distribution. Charles Carreon made a public splash as the
attorney for FunnyJunk, which created a back-and-forth which eventually led the Internet to turn
against him. In return for those actions, Carreon labeled everyone he thought of as an
“instigator” as a “rapeutationist.” When one person offers an opinion that others find to be
believable, it creates a mob mentality on both sides of the equation. When this happens, it can
destroy a person’s livelihood quickly.

6. Freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse.

Voltaire’s biographer summed up the views of the philosopher like this: “I don’t agree
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When freedom of speech is
treated this way, then it creates a situation where people must endure sexist or racist verbal
abuse. Is it really beneficial for society to allow individuals to use derogatory terms for the
purpose of causing discomfort?
We already know that there can be poor health outcomes associated with the fear of
violence and crime. Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of UCSF conduced an online survey platform that asked
students to rate their fear of experiencing 11 different crimes that included physical assault, hate
speech, vandalism, and microaggressions among others. Her findings showed that students in
racial minority groups feared violence more than Caucasians. Ongoing fear is a risk factor for
mental health declines as well.

7. Freedom of speech will eventually polarize society.

When people are allowed to express their opinions freely, then it creates three primary
outcomes. Some people will agree with the statement, others will disagree, and a middle group
won’t care one way or the other. People tend to hang out in circles where others think and feel
in similar ways, which means they will gather around like-minded individuals to spend most of
their time.
Pew Research found as early as 2014 that 92% of Republicans are to the political right
of the median Democrat, while 94% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican.
36% of GOP supporters even felt that members of the opposite party were a threat to the
wellbeing of the country. When there are ideological silos created from free speech, it eventually
polarizes society into groups that struggle to get along with each other.

28% of people say that it is important to them to live in a place where most others share
their political views. For people who label themselves as “consistently conservative,” that figure
rises to 50%, and 63% of that same group says that most of their close friends share their
political views.

8. Freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise.

Pew Research also discovered that when people are consistently liberal or conservative
with their freedom of speech, their idea of what compromise entails begins to shift. Instead of
believing that both sides must have a give-and-take to create an outcome, the definition
becomes one in which their side gets what they want while the other side gets as little as
possible. This perspective makes it a challenge for society to function because those on each
extreme are consistently battling the other extreme because each views themselves as being
the superior contributor to society.

A Final Thought on the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech

The pros and cons of freedom of speech suggest that there should be some limits in
place for the general good of society. Allowing people to say or do whatever they want at any
time increases the risk for harm. Do we really want to live in a world where the creation and
distribution of child pornography is a protected right?
Once we start deciding “good” and “bad” speech, it opens the door for abuses to occur.
That is why the Supreme Court in the United States has worked hard for over 200 years to
create rigid definitions of what is helpful and what is harmful. The goal is to allow people to
express contrary opinions without the threat of legal reprisal. This structure promotes an
exchange of ideas, which then encourages the learning processes for everyone.