Internet Censorship: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?

topicID=83

About IDEA | About Debate | Teaching Tools | Resources | Events | Join IDEA | Donate | Contact Us
Need help? | Register Now

print this page

Internet Censorship
Intro to Debatabase Discuss topic
Summary: Should governments censor material on the world wide web?
Debatabase Junior
Contributing Topics
Introduction
Commission Topics
Author:
My Topics
Matt Butt ( United Kingdom )
Submit Topic
Suggest Topic Created: Friday, November 03, 2000
Last Modified: Friday, November 03, 2000

Context
The internet is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass communication and information distribution in
the world. It can be used to distribute large amounts of information anywhere in the world at a minimal
cost. In the last ten years there has been increasing concern about damaging internet content from
violence and sexual content to bomb-making instructions, terrorist activity and child pornography. Even if
moral arguments surrounding internet censorship can be justified there remain practical problems with the
regulation of such an international concept.

Arguments

Pros
Despite the generally prevailing principle of freedom of
speech in democratic countries, it is widely accepted
that certain types of speech are not given protection as
they are deemed to be of insufficient value compared
to the harm, they cause. Child pornography in the print
or broadcast media for instance is never tolerated. The
internet should be no exception to these basic
standards. Truly offensive material such as hardcore
pornography and extreme racial hatred are no different
simply because they are published on the world wide
web as opposed to a book or video.
Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium.
Accordingly there is a higher level of censorship
attached to television, films and video than to
newspapers and books. this is because we recognise
that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and
powerful then text and photographs or illustrations.
There is also normally more regulation of videos then
cinema films because the viewer of a video is a captive
audience with the power to rewind, view again and
distribute more widely. The internet, which increasingly
uses video and sound should be attached the same
level of power and regulated accordingly.
That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we
should not seek to do so, it is extremely difficult already
to prevent the sale of snuff movies or hard core
pornography but governments do so because it is
deemed to be of societal importance. A more relevant
difficulty is the anonymity provided by the internet
which gives pornographers and criminals the
opportunity to abuse the medium. Asian countries have
experimented with requiring citizens to provide
identification before posting content on to the internet,
such a system if universally adopted could be a
relatively simple way of enforcing laws against truly
offensive and harmful content.
Cons
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 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

1 of 3 26/3/2009 10:18 μμ
Internet Censorship: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83

information without reprisal from the state, such a

In many countries there will be multiple liability for
production of slanderous material, material which
incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can
not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued
or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively
small number of internet service providers (ISPs)
should be made liable if they assist in the provision of
dangerous and harmful information such as bomb
making instructions, hard core pornography etc.
The issues at stake in this debate, protection of
children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred etc. are
all international problems. If a global solution is
required then it can be achieved by international
co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is
justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by
the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples
cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups
in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed
above it is possible to limit that harm.
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. 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.

Motions
This House would censor the Internet
This House calls for nannies on the Net
This House would limit freedom of speech

Useful Sites
EEF (Electronic Frontier Foundation): Blue Ribbon Campaign
Internet Cencorship
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union): CyberLiberties

Useful Books
On Liberty
By: John Mill
Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace : Freedom and Censorship on the Frontiers of the Online Revolution
By: Jonathan Wallace
Libraries the First Amendment and Cyberspace : What You Need to Know
By: Robert Peck

Themes
Moral and Religious

Discuss
View the full discussion

Author Post

zwglaze Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:54 am

Member

LOL

cong3 Posted: Tue Dec 9, 2008 02:59 pm

Member
[b][user=52430]choijs1110[/user] wrote: [/b]

Quote:

[font="arial black"]You know it could be invading someone's

privacies. :shock:[/font]

[font="arial black"]However, then you mean like parents conroling

their kids is wrong?[/font]

[font="arial black"]It is for their good.[/font]

[font="arial black"]I mean, you can do anything in internet.[/font]

2 of 3 26/3/2009 10:18 μμ
Internet Censorship: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83

[font="arial black"]And it can harm you not directely.[/font]

[font="arial black"]That is why they are censoring our internet for

us to be healthy mind and everything.[/font]

[font="arial black"]Isn't it?[/font]

they should not censor but outright get rid of the state secret stuff and terrorist
things unless its informing about the terrorists anything else should be left alone
p.s. child porn should go to

choijs1110 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 08:18 am

Member
[font="arial black"]You know it could be invading someone's privacies. :shock:
[/font]

[font="arial black"]However, then you mean like parents conroling their kids is
wrong?[/font]

[font="arial black"]It is for their good.[/font]

[font="arial black"]I mean, you can do anything in internet.[/font]

[font="arial black"]And it can harm you not directely.[/font]

[font="arial black"]That is why they are censoring our internet for us to be healthy
mind and everything.[/font]

[font="arial black"]Isn't it?[/font]

Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion

Home Privacy Statement Contact Us Terms and Conditions

IDEA Inc. and the Dutch registered IDEA are separate organizations that operate independently yet cooperate informally with each other. This website, a joint
presentation, is intended to promote both organizations' interests while maintaining their respective independence.
Queries: webmaster@idebate.org. All Content is © IDEA 2006

3 of 3 26/3/2009 10:18 μμ