Censorship of the Internet – a detriment or a necessity?
Kelly Chan

A research paper for Matthew Mansour in response to:
Throughout the world there has been an increase in discussions regarding “Censorship of the Internet, explain how Censorship can work in some instances but in others it can be a detriment to society.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 What is Censorship? 3.1 Self Censorship 3.2 Censorship as Protection

1.0 Introduction

The Internet has undoubtedly developed into the biggest source of global information and media since its modest inception in the late 1960’s. With the increasing ease of worldwide access due to cheaper methods of producing technology and education, bridging the digital divide. However, Government censorship and regulation of access to certain content available on the internet in various countries has raised issues about whether it is effective, regarding each country’s purpose in imposing censorship and whether it is detrimental to the growth in knowledge and progress of society.

In this research paper, the role of Censorship in society and the inherent need for appropriate regulation of different levels of access to available information, based on morals and the responsibility we have to the younger generation to protect them from unsuitable content is discussed along with the technology we have to ensure this.

The varying degrees of censorship between China and Australia will also be comparatively examined in order to demonstrate the restrictive grip it may have on society in terms of freedom of speech, expression and quality of information and how it represents the present state of our global society and the counter-effects it may have as a result.

Finally, the importance of Censorship or internet security as a security measure for the storage and transfer of sensitive, confidential information as well as a means to keep the information available for all end users in order to keep the Internet a credible source of information and knowledge is explored.

2.0 What is Censorship? Internet Censorship can be broadly defined as the “suppression of ideas, information or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers.” In essence, government censorship of the Internet can be categorised into four categories:

1. Government policy to encourage Internet industry self-regulation and end-user voluntary use of filtering/blocking technologies;
2. Criminal law penalties applicable to content providers who make content “unsuitable for minors” available online;
3. Government mandated blocking of access to content deemed unsuitable for adults; and 4. Government prohibition of public access to the Internet.

2.1 Self-Censorship
The use of self-censorship, through the use of filtering/blocking technologies reflects the increase in understanding of the evolving nature of the Internet by end users as they become more aware of the personal options they have regarding what and how much information they wish to view, associated with the advances beyond Web 2.0. On the simplest level, end-users can employ the use of spam filters, such as Norton® to sort through unsolicited “junk” emails that often carry viruses and legitimate emails. Similarly in schools and libraries, blacklisting and keyword blocking are two of the most commonly used techniques to censor information. This kind of censorship software allows the administrator to comply a list of sensitive keywords, with the software then denying access to websites that contain these certain words, are commonly employed. Not only does this allow more productive environment for school children to learn it, it filters out the unnecessary information that will not benefit their education. In the workplace, it is estimated that 30% of web surfing is not work-related and that 20% of employees from a range of companies examined by the Securing Computing Corporation (2005) visited pornographic websites at work. Not only does this reduce work productivity, it has been found that pornography is most commonly shared on P2P file sharing networks and are responsible for consuming up to 80% of the bandwidth which has a crippling effect on the network.

2.2 Censorship as Protection Category 2 and 3 establishes that some information needs to be blocked (for purposes relating to the protection of children, prohibition and confinement of illegal activity, religious and cultural ideals) and also highlights the importance of maintaining a freedom of speech, especially under a democratic government. Hence it is important that the government needs to find a sliding scale between how much to block.

Currently in Australia, there are many laws such as Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (BSA Act) that give authoritative power to organisations such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to ‘regulate internet service providers and content hosts in censoring prohibited (and potentially prohibited) content. The Classification Board is also a central part to the filtering content, namely films, video games and artistic publications available to Australian citizens through the National Classification Code. This provides a less direct alternative to censorship as opposed China’s policy (see 2.4 below) in that it does not order immediate cuts or change; instead it can refuse to approve classification and make media “illegal for hire, exhibition and importation in Australia”.

This sort of censorship can be highly beneficial to society when it comes to protecting minors from viewing unsuitable material that has become widely available on the Internet such as pornography, adult material and explicit content. Recently in Australia, two of the biggest internet service providers, Telstra and Optus have announced they would block access to a list of websites deemed to contain content of a child pornographic nature by the ACMA.. Despite doubts being raised regarding the effectiveness of censorship here due to the fallibility of even the strongest firewalls and filtering systems, thought must be paid to the safety of children on the Internet. Whilst censorship of this form has shown to be beneficial in that it does most of the heavy work, ultimately it is the responsibility of parents and community leaders to lead by example through education and to exercise control over the type of content accessed by those in their care.

2.3 Is Censorship restricting our personal freedom?
The issue of removing inappropriate, explicit content from the Internet also raises the issue of whether the democratic system and the rights that flow from it have been violated. By eliminating words, phrases and names from search engines, blocking or limiting access to certain websites deemed inappropriate for the wider community, the right for people to freely access and contribute information is denied and the promotion of transparency between the government and its citizens crushed. The Internet is so widely used because it allows users to become “their own publishers”, and as Hilary Clinton in the video “Remarks on Internet Freedom” argues, free flow of information will result in “stronger societies, encouragement of creativity and entrepreneurship” which is under threat due to increasing presence of censorship.

However, even freedom of speech has its limitations. Information that incites hatred or violence; discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is intolerable; highlighted by current events such as the Muslim riots in Sydney sparked by a single message spread through Facebook and suicide cases of today’s youth due cyber-bullying through Twitter and other social networking sites.

Closely related is the issue of freedom of expression through music, media and various art-forms. It is through this medium that people freely convey ideas, emotions and opinions however; these ideas may conflict with people of power. Every time a word is beeped out on the radio, television or an edited version of it is played is an example of censorship. We claim that this is done in order to protect the younger generation from being exposed to profanities at a young age and content that they are not mature enough to deal with, however, censorship can have a detrimental effect in this sense. If a song is completely censored from the public, it is more than likely to be reported through mass media and the Internet and has the effect of generating more attention to it as opposed to if it wasn’t banned.

3.0 Censorship in China and Australia
It may also be because there is a general consensus of disagreement in the public or it may challenge/threaten the ideologies of controlling regimes or private pressure groups. The news article “Lady Gaga and Katy Perry: banned in China for being too vulgar” showcases inevitable clashes between different cultures and the misunderstandings and fear (in this case, the fear of exposing the nation’s youth to “poor taste and vulgar content”) that fuel the demand for censorship. This is just one of the many examples of the driving force behind the creation of the “Great Firewall of China”.
3.1 Censorship in China
With more online users than any other country at over 500 million people, the monitoring of the internet usage in China is extremely stringent owing to their ruling communist government and their driving desire to protect their cultural identity.
In order to heavily restrict the content inflow and outflow in the country, the government utilises several techniques such as shielding the domain names as sensitive words, shielding the IP of the domain names and interfering with the DNS analysis. In doing so, its citizens’ are refused the right for public political discussions (in the fear of rebellion against the Chinese Communist Party sparked by the Tiannamen Square protests in 1989). Additionally, the information in which they have access to is severely limited, denying students, businessmen and scientists knowledge of the current trends hence reducing their understanding of the global society despite having the second largest economy. The government also has in place, censors that monitor exchanges of information between end users in the search for sensitive key words considered harmful, threatening or explicit. As a result, blog sites such as LiveJournal have been censored and websites such as Twitter and Facebook banned due to the viral nature of the exchange of information and external influences through these medium.
Recently in 2010, China has, in conjunction with the police, even taken a further step in increasing their censorship grip on its citizens by monitoring text messages for “pornography, violence, fraud, suggestions of terrorism, instigations to crime and gambling”, a clear violation of basic human rights and privacy as the content seized could be easily distributed. Whilst the government has offered its citizens a heavily washed down version of Facebook and Twitter through Weibo and QQ, it is still heavily monitored with posts deemed offensive and in violation of the government policy being deleted without warning.
3.2 Censorship in Australia
In comparison to Australia’s censorship framework, the Australian government only aims to guide internet users to making informed decisions regarding what type of content is appropriate for their use using limited censorship for explicit, harmful content that is generally regarded as distasteful, illegal and/or inappropriate and filters everything else via a classification code. In a sense, Australians, as part of a democratic government, get the freedom of choosing how to increase their pool of knowledge via the internet with a mutual understanding between the citizens and government of the certain limitations that come with having this freedom.
The comparison of these countries’ censorship policies highlight the notion that despite having the same desire to protect its citizens from negative, harmful content - they have different motivations and methods behind its imposition. Whilst in China, the need for censorship is heavily politically driven combined with the fear of outside influences; in Australia, there is an inherent need to protect the younger generations from harmful content and to give its citizens relative freedom to individually choose what content they wish to view through the classification code.
4.0 Maintaining the Internet as a safe medium of content transmission
In the present era, information can be transferred, edited and published in a matter of seconds. For example, a pair of shoes can be bought from Italy in Australia with a few clicks of a button on a site like eBay. Hence, businesses are taking advantage of this now and relying more and more heavily on the Internet to conduct operations and to reach out to more potential customers. This also opens up the possibility of online crime such as identity theft through the unsafe transmission of sensitive data hence the use of censorship technology such as encrpytion and safe access port is vital. Censorship undoubtedly plays a large role in maintaining the stability of society hence this technology needs to be extended to a national level in order to protect national security. From an economic perspective, for example, company information that can alter share prices dramatically must also be protected in order to keep the economy in a balanced state.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6996885/C hina-begins-monitoring-billions-of-text-messages-as-censorship-increases.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/31248.html

Considering that the internet was originally created for the purpose of sharing information between academia and military as well as help research, censorship will ensure that this information remains relevant and accurate. Sites such as Wikipedia, which allows anyone to contribute and edit information on any topic would be redundant as a source of credible information without censorship.

3.
In conclusion, it is clear that censorship plays an extremely vital role in regulating a society that is becoming more and more technologically aware of the advances associated with Web 2.0. With the exponentially increasing amount of information level available on the 'Information Superhighway' harmful, explicit content will undoubtedly arise and as a society, we have a moral obligation to protect the younger generation and provide them with substantial, relevant knowledge to grow as an individual.
Equally as important is that the use of strict online censorship regulation laws will restrict the its illegal distribution (piracy and illegal downloading) of music and media, limiting access to porn (child pornography in particular) and greatly reduce the damage of internet scams and viruses; the main motivation for this being to halt the moral decay of society. Conversely, this sort of strict online regulation can have a detrimental effect on society as it ultimately threatens an individual's right to freedom of speech and expression. We explored an extreme case; China, where censorship is heavily imposed as a result of a strong communist political influence and fear of external influences and compare to the democratic censorship policy of Australia, where there is a focus on individual rights and protection of the younger generation through the national classification code and strict laws regarding illegal content.
In the interest of keeping the content available on the Internet relevant, censorship is an ideal method to regulate sites such as Wikipedia as well as keep sensitive information transferred between businesses and the government in order to protect national security and maintain a stabilized economy. Hence, censorship has undoubtedly earned a place in the protection of today's technological era given that a balance between the motives of the government and the rights of its citizens is achieved.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. “Definitions of censorship” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html
[ 4 ]. Lecture Notes
[ 5 ]. Lecture Notes
[ 11 ]. “Remarks on Internet Freedom", accessed at on 10/11/2012
[ 12 ]. Remarks on Internet Freedom", accessed at on 10/11/2012
[ 21 ]. “China begins monitoring billions of text messages as censorship increases”, (Malcom Moore 2010), accessed at on 6/11/2012.