The More You Know: Internet Censorship
Long time no see. Did a report on Internet Censorship for my Participation in Government class, and had to finish it with a position paper. This is what I ended up with:
Internet censorship seems to be one of the most pressing issues in the global community. Sure in America, the government is usually against it, but in areas like China, the middle east, and Australia, censorship online causes a lot of civil unrest. To me, the internet is the final stronghold of free thought, where in some countries, any images or topics are allowed. No matter how immoral or controversial, the public is willing to address many, many taboo subjects, as long as they have the comfort of assumed anonymity. For this reason, the web has become a primary source of the public collective conscious. The raw, unaltered footage of Wikileaks, the investigative reports on YouTube, and the rants and raving of 4chan all have a significant role in revealing society's true expressions and opinions, for all to see. To take away this looking-glass into the psyche of society through censorship is to deny the public its right to self-identity.
To target China Would be too easy. Most Western countries are aware of China's disrespect for history, and rejection of government responsibility through censorship. Almost anything related to the events between China and Tibet along with the Tiananmen Square protests is in danger of being swiftly blocked, or even re-written (source 1). These actions have landed the Chinese government under heavy criticism from other nations. Google has had quite an issue getting to Chinese consumers because the government wants their public to use government-controlled search engines instead (source 2). Their goal is to keep the public ignorant.
What's more difficult to look at is the case for America. In our history, there have only been two major, federal-level laws regarding internet censorship, the Communications Decency Act, from 1996, and the Child Online Protection Act, drafted and put forth a year later. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was a very broad bill for censorship, which looked to effectively ban any kind of offensive or obscene material on the internet whatsoever. The bill did not go into explicit detail on exactly what was and was not allowed, but somehow managed to still make it through congress and get passed in early 1996, when the Internet as a mainstream force in America was still in its infancy (source 3). Luckily, the bill was called to question in June 1996, and the supreme court repealed the bill. The CDA was well-itentioned, but ill-fated due to its inherent flaws in being too general.
The Child Online Protection Act, two years later in 1998, was a much more focused bill, whose premise was to keep violent and sexual messages away from minors (source 4). The logic of this bill was to make sure that minors could not view any "harmful material" that they normally wouldn't be able to view anyways in books or magazines. The law sounds like a turn in the right direction, however the specifications in the bill were never passed due to constant delays and legal issues, and the bill was officially considered dead in 2009. It was ultimately decided that the parents in custody of a child have the final say in what a minor can view online, and that to place a government ban on all of the proposed materials would require an obnoxious amount of effort and money.
With these two failed bills, as a nation America seems to have decided that censoring the internet is not something that the public needs, especially with its firm stances against the ACTA trade agreement plans proposed by Australia and other Western cultures (source 5). I am optimistic that the stronghold of free thought will remain as such for another few decades, however it would not be surprising to me if our government shifted its views and decided to broaden its definition of "sensitive information" and start censoring more and more "anti-american" or activist websites. I could easily see them enacting some sort of clause that states (just like a search warrant) that if the police finds "just cause" to censor a website or to block off access to a foreign website, they may do so. While "protecting" minors from harmful materials is not really a first amendment violation, blocking suspected "terrorist" websites or other kinds of blogs that would affect even adults could raise up some serious issues. If the internet had existed back in the 1930s-40s, it would have been heavily censored, as this was a prime time of information sensitivity paranoia. In the 50s, "communist" websites would have been banned, and in the 60s I'm sure the government would have blocked off and found "just cause" to take down websites pertaining to the counter-culture movement. Clearly, our government had been widely supportive of suppressing information before, so who's to say that they wouldn't change their mind in the future?
Lastly I'd like to take a look at Australia, a nation not too dissimilar from our own. The censorship there is not the worst or most oppressive, but because it is a "Western" country in culture, it is somewhat surprising the amount of government intervention that they allow as far as internet content goes. The Suicide Related Offenses bill they passed in 2005 is a source of a lot of concern for me (Source 6). The bill looks to prevent all discussion of suicide, by law, except for investigative reports on suicidal tendencies or anything of that nature. So, while it might seem awful for a person to say "I'm thinking about killing myself if my wife leaves me", is it really the government's place to keep that individual from expressing his emotions? This bill is not limited to minors either, they want to prevent even adult from inciting, threatening, or even suggesting thoughts of suicide. In 2004, suicide was globally ranked #14 in highest cause-of-death, even with separate diseases broken up. Clearly just banning it from discussion online is not going to fix such a widespread issue, and choosing to politely turn people away from an ugly truth through censorship seems a little bit like lunacy.
So, is America in danger of some kind of totalitarian-level censorship? It would be absurd to assume so. But we also need to think of the larger picture. Egypt's internet was shut down for some hours in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and China continues to be hurt economically through online trade restrictions (source 7). To simply say "well, not in my country, so who cares?" seems very short-sighted, and selfish. The internet is a global hub for all of mankind, and everyone deserves to have as little restrictions as possible to allow people across the globe to connect and understand each other. Australia is a prime example of how even an "advanced" society can promote such outrageous laws...the UK could be next, who knows, or France. With ACTA gaining more and more support in the European Union, this is an issue that as a nation and as a member of the globe, we need to keep an eye on, to ensure freedom of speech and expression of ideas.
Internet censorship seems to be one of the most pressing issues in the global community. Sure in America, the government is usually against it, but in areas like China, the middle east, and Australia, censorship online causes a lot of civil unrest. To me, the internet is the final stronghold of free thought, where in some countries, any images or topics are allowed. No matter how immoral or controversial, the public is willing to address many, many taboo subjects, as long as they have the comfort of assumed anonymity. For this reason, the web has become a primary source of the public collective conscious. The raw, unaltered footage of Wikileaks, the investigative reports on YouTube, and the rants and raving of 4chan all have a significant role in revealing society's true expressions and opinions, for all to see. To take away this looking-glass into the psyche of society through censorship is to deny the public its right to self-identity.
To target China Would be too easy. Most Western countries are aware of China's disrespect for history, and rejection of government responsibility through censorship. Almost anything related to the events between China and Tibet along with the Tiananmen Square protests is in danger of being swiftly blocked, or even re-written (source 1). These actions have landed the Chinese government under heavy criticism from other nations. Google has had quite an issue getting to Chinese consumers because the government wants their public to use government-controlled search engines instead (source 2). Their goal is to keep the public ignorant.
What's more difficult to look at is the case for America. In our history, there have only been two major, federal-level laws regarding internet censorship, the Communications Decency Act, from 1996, and the Child Online Protection Act, drafted and put forth a year later. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was a very broad bill for censorship, which looked to effectively ban any kind of offensive or obscene material on the internet whatsoever. The bill did not go into explicit detail on exactly what was and was not allowed, but somehow managed to still make it through congress and get passed in early 1996, when the Internet as a mainstream force in America was still in its infancy (source 3). Luckily, the bill was called to question in June 1996, and the supreme court repealed the bill. The CDA was well-itentioned, but ill-fated due to its inherent flaws in being too general.
The Child Online Protection Act, two years later in 1998, was a much more focused bill, whose premise was to keep violent and sexual messages away from minors (source 4). The logic of this bill was to make sure that minors could not view any "harmful material" that they normally wouldn't be able to view anyways in books or magazines. The law sounds like a turn in the right direction, however the specifications in the bill were never passed due to constant delays and legal issues, and the bill was officially considered dead in 2009. It was ultimately decided that the parents in custody of a child have the final say in what a minor can view online, and that to place a government ban on all of the proposed materials would require an obnoxious amount of effort and money.
With these two failed bills, as a nation America seems to have decided that censoring the internet is not something that the public needs, especially with its firm stances against the ACTA trade agreement plans proposed by Australia and other Western cultures (source 5). I am optimistic that the stronghold of free thought will remain as such for another few decades, however it would not be surprising to me if our government shifted its views and decided to broaden its definition of "sensitive information" and start censoring more and more "anti-american" or activist websites. I could easily see them enacting some sort of clause that states (just like a search warrant) that if the police finds "just cause" to censor a website or to block off access to a foreign website, they may do so. While "protecting" minors from harmful materials is not really a first amendment violation, blocking suspected "terrorist" websites or other kinds of blogs that would affect even adults could raise up some serious issues. If the internet had existed back in the 1930s-40s, it would have been heavily censored, as this was a prime time of information sensitivity paranoia. In the 50s, "communist" websites would have been banned, and in the 60s I'm sure the government would have blocked off and found "just cause" to take down websites pertaining to the counter-culture movement. Clearly, our government had been widely supportive of suppressing information before, so who's to say that they wouldn't change their mind in the future?
Lastly I'd like to take a look at Australia, a nation not too dissimilar from our own. The censorship there is not the worst or most oppressive, but because it is a "Western" country in culture, it is somewhat surprising the amount of government intervention that they allow as far as internet content goes. The Suicide Related Offenses bill they passed in 2005 is a source of a lot of concern for me (Source 6). The bill looks to prevent all discussion of suicide, by law, except for investigative reports on suicidal tendencies or anything of that nature. So, while it might seem awful for a person to say "I'm thinking about killing myself if my wife leaves me", is it really the government's place to keep that individual from expressing his emotions? This bill is not limited to minors either, they want to prevent even adult from inciting, threatening, or even suggesting thoughts of suicide. In 2004, suicide was globally ranked #14 in highest cause-of-death, even with separate diseases broken up. Clearly just banning it from discussion online is not going to fix such a widespread issue, and choosing to politely turn people away from an ugly truth through censorship seems a little bit like lunacy.
So, is America in danger of some kind of totalitarian-level censorship? It would be absurd to assume so. But we also need to think of the larger picture. Egypt's internet was shut down for some hours in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and China continues to be hurt economically through online trade restrictions (source 7). To simply say "well, not in my country, so who cares?" seems very short-sighted, and selfish. The internet is a global hub for all of mankind, and everyone deserves to have as little restrictions as possible to allow people across the globe to connect and understand each other. Australia is a prime example of how even an "advanced" society can promote such outrageous laws...the UK could be next, who knows, or France. With ACTA gaining more and more support in the European Union, this is an issue that as a nation and as a member of the globe, we need to keep an eye on, to ensure freedom of speech and expression of ideas.
Comments
Internet Censorship
Communications Decency Act, 1996
-Overturned in June 1996 by the Supreme Court
Sample:
`(b) Whoever, using any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce, including the mail, or within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual
who has not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution
or any sexual act for which any person may be criminally
prosecuted, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
European "Critical Information Infrastructure Protection" (2009):
Sample:
The risks due to man-made attacks, natural disasters or technical failures are often not fully understood and/or sufficiently analysed. Consequently, the level of awareness across stakeholders is insufficient to devise effective safeguards and countermeasures.
Cyber-attacks have risen to an unprecedented level of sophistication. Simple experiments are now turning into sophisticated activities performed for profit or political reasons. The recent large scale cyber-attacks on Estonia, Lithuania and Georgia are the most widely covered examples of a general trend. The huge number of viruses, worms and other forms of malware, the expansion of botnets and the continuous rise of spam confirm the severity of the problem
ACTA: Anti-Counterfieting Trade Agreement
Goals:
The EU's objective with ACTA partners is to have a new plurilateral treaty improving global standards for the enforcement of IPR, to more effectively combat trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.
Countries Involved:
The negotiating parties of ACTA are a mix of developed and emerging economies: Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Although ACTA is now being negotiated amongst like-minded countries, it is hoped that major countries facing the same counterfeiting and piracy problems will eventually accede to it.
(Source).
Laws and Policies Throughout the World
This report contains information on government policy and/or laws regarding Internet censorship in various countries around the world.
1996:
Victoria, WA and NT Internet censorship laws commenced (1 Jan 96)
USA Communication Decency Act (CDA) enacted, US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Feb 96)
USA Court ruled CDA unconstitutional (Jun 96)
UK Government issued R3 Safety-Net action plan developed by UK ISP trade associations and agreed by Government involving industry establishment of complaints hotline and related take-down procedures for illegal Internet content, primarily child pornography (Sep 96)
European Commission issued a Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet advocating the use of filtering software and rating systems, and an encouragement to self-regulation of access-providers. (Oct 96)
1997:
USA Supreme Court struck down the CDA (Jun 97)
NZ Parliament rejected a Bill intended to censor Internet content unsuitable for minors (Jul 97).
1998:
UK Human Rights Bill enacted implementing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
USA Child Online Protection Act (COPA) enacted (Oct 98). US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Nov 98).
1999:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced it would not regulate the Internet (17 May 99).
Australian Commonwealth Parliament passed Internet censorship Bill (26 May & 30 Jun 99)
Australian State and Territory Censorship Ministers issued draft Internet censorship legislation for comment (Aug 99).
NZ Court of Appeal overturned a classification of (offline) 'objectionable' material on grounds that the Classification Board had failed to demonstrate the classification was consistent with the NZ Bill of Rights (Dec 99)
2000:
Australian Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation commenced (1 Jan 2000)
US Court of Appeals upheld injunction restraining enforcement of US Child Online Protection Act (COPA). (Jun 2000)
UK censorship of sexually explicit material became less restrictive following an appeal case (Jul 2000).
Australian censorship of sexually explicit material became more restrictive following a government decision to ban depictions of various types of legal activity between adults. (Sep 2000)
UK Courts became able to test the compatibility of UK law with the European Convention on Human Rights (commencement of relevant provisions of the UK Human Rights Bill 1998). (Oct 2000)
South Australian State Government tabled an Internet censorship Bill (Nov 2000)
UK Government issued Communications White Paper indicating no intent to enact Internet censorship legislation and stating policy of supporting means of enabling Internet users to control their own and their children's access, "rather than third party regulation". (Dec 2000)
2001:
NSW State Government tabled an Internet censorship Bill (Nov 2001)
1996:
Victoria, WA and NT Internet censorship laws commenced (1 Jan 96)
USA Communication Decency Act (CDA) enacted, US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Feb 96)
USA Court ruled CDA unconstitutional (Jun 96)
UK Government issued R3 Safety-Net action plan developed by UK ISP trade associations and agreed by Government involving industry establishment of complaints hotline and related take-down procedures for illegal Internet content, primarily child pornography (Sep 96)
European Commission issued a Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet advocating the use of filtering software and rating systems, and an encouragement to self-regulation of access-providers. (Oct 96)
1997:
USA Supreme Court struck down the CDA (Jun 97)
NZ Parliament rejected a Bill intended to censor Internet content unsuitable for minors (Jul 97).
1998:
UK Human Rights Bill enacted implementing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
USA Child Online Protection Act (COPA) enacted (Oct 98). US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Nov 98).
1999:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced it would not regulate the Internet (17 May 99).
Australian Commonwealth Parliament passed Internet censorship Bill (26 May & 30 Jun 99)
Australian State and Territory Censorship Ministers issued draft Internet censorship legislation for comment (Aug 99).
NZ Court of Appeal overturned a classification of (offline) 'objectionable' material on grounds that the Classification Board had failed to demonstrate the classification was consistent with the NZ Bill of Rights (Dec 99)
2000:
Australian Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation commenced (1 Jan 2000)
US Court of Appeals upheld injunction restraining enforcement of US Child Online Protection Act (COPA). (Jun 2000)
UK censorship of sexually explicit material became less restrictive following an appeal case (Jul 2000).
Australian censorship of sexually explicit material became more restrictive following a government decision to ban depictions of various types of legal activity between adults. (Sep 2000)
UK Courts became able to test the compatibility of UK law with the European Convention on Human Rights (commencement of relevant provisions of the UK Human Rights Bill 1998). (Oct 2000)
South Australian State Government tabled an Internet censorship Bill (Nov 2000)
UK Government issued Communications White Paper indicating no intent to enact Internet censorship legislation and stating policy of supporting means of enabling Internet users to control their own and their children's access, "rather than third party regulation". (Dec 2000)
2001:
NSW State Government tabled an Internet censorship Bill (Nov 2001)
The USA Government has enacted two Federal laws intended to censor offensive online content. Neither of these laws are in force as at March 2002. The first law (the CDA) was struck down by the USA Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. The second law (the COPA), which is more narrowly focussed and covers only communications that are made for commercial purposes on the World Wide Web, is the subject of a Court injunction (also on First Amendment grounds) preventing its enforcement pending a decision of the Supreme Court. The Court decision is expected to be handed down in the latter part of 2002.
Sample:
The Congress finds that--
(1) while custody, care, and nurture of the child resides
first with the parent, the widespread availability of the
Internet presents opportunities for minors to access
materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can
frustrate parental supervision or control;
(2) the protection of the physical and psychological well-
being of minors by shielding them from materials that are
harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest;
(3) to date, while the industry has developed innovative
ways to help parents and educators restrict material that is
harmful to minors through parental control protections and
self-regulation, such efforts have not provided a national
solution to the problem of minors accessing harmful material
on the World Wide Web;
(4) a prohibition on the distribution of material harmful
to minors, combined with legitimate defenses, is currently
the most effective and least restrictive means by which to
satisfy the compelling government interest; and
(5) notwithstanding the existence of protections that limit
the distribution over the World Wide Web of material that is
harmful to minors, parents, educators, and industry must
continue efforts to find ways to protect children from being
exposed to harmful material found on the Internet.
(read full text)
EFA's Review of the Effectiveness of Australian Censorship
EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia) has released an extensive review of just how effective Australia's recent internet censorship laws are. The full report can be found on their site.
Sample:
Executive Summary
There is no evidence or indication in Government reports to support the Minister's claim [2] on 21 August 2002 that the Internet has been made safer as a result of the Government's Internet censorship regime.
The ABA spent 83% of its Internet censorship efforts investigating content on overseas-hosted websites over which it has no control.
Approximately half of the prohibited items designated as hosted in Australia were found in world-wide Usenet newsgroups, most likely originated outside Australia, and were not taken down from the Internet.
The ABA's refusal to provide the URLs or titles of taken-down Australian-hosted web pages, on the ground that such information would enable a person to access prohibited content on the Internet, indicates the ABA believes such content has not been taken down from the Internet.
Ministerial statements trumpeting the success of the scheme have been, by the Minister's own admission, based on erroneous statistics.
Misleading statements have been made by the government about the proportion of prohibited content that is actual c hi ld pornography.
The scheme exaggerates the outcomes by claiming newsgroup postings removed from one Usenet newsgroup server as content that has been removed from the Internet.
The referral of prohibited content to scheduled filter vendors is not followed up to ensure that the vendors add the content to their filter blocklist.
The application of film classification guidelines to static images and text on the Internet is inappropriate and results in prohibition of content online that is legally available in magazines offline.
OFLC fees for classification, and review of a classification, of a web page are exorbitant, costing approximately five times the fee for an entire offline magazine.
Online publishers have less rights in relation to review and appeal of classification decisions than offline publishers.
The effectiveness or otherwise of the complaints system would be clearer if the outcome of investigations resulting from legislatively valid complaints (i.e. from Australian residents), and information received from other entities such as overseas hotlines, was reported on separately.
No information has been made available by the government about successful prosecutions, if any, resulting from the scheme.
The estimated $2.7M annual cost of the scheme is difficult to justify given the limited outcomes achieved.
No clean feed protests against the Rudd government's mandatory ISP filtering at Rundle Mall, Adelaide, Australia (source).
Turkish Virtual Protest on Google Maps
On this site, a group of Turks have organized an online protest against internet censorship.
Suicide Related Material Offences- 2005
The Australian government effectively banned posting, promoting or sharing any information that they felt would incite suicide or give instructions on how to do so:
Schedule 1—Suicide related material offences
Criminal Code Act 1995
1 After section 474.29 of the Criminal Code
Insert:
474.29A Using a carriage service for suicide related material
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person:
(i) uses a carriage service to access material; or
(ii) uses a carriage service to cause material to be transmitted to the person; or
(iii) uses a carriage service to transmit material; or
(iv) uses a carriage service to make material available; or
(v) uses a carriage service to publish or otherwise distribute material; and
(b) the material directly or indirectly counsels or incites suicide; and
(c) the person:
(i) intends to use the material to counsel or incite suicide; or
(ii) intends that the material be used by another person to counsel or incite suicide.
So, what do you guys think of these recent laws, and what the future holds?
I really liked the perspective of considering what internet censorship would be like in the 1930s-1950s in comparison to how internet censorship could turn into in the future, but I feel like you left out any argument for why it wouldn't go in that direction. The classic banned books such as Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Brave New World, etc. had a huge impact on how America viewed censorship; I feel that if America were to start leaning towards heavy censorship again, those examples and more would be brought up in order to fight it, just as they did in the counter-culture you talked about. It's true that the government could conceivably censor the internet without listening to what the public would have to say, but I know a whole lot of people who would be willing to fight for that.