The Debate on Internet Censorship

Internet censorship is a topic that is drawing more and more attention recently. The debate centers around whether governments and other authority figures have the right to censor what internet users can and can't do or see online. Major examples of this seen in the news recently are the controversy surrounding China and its internet policies and Iran's blocking of Gmail.

China censors many websites because it vies them as a threat to the ruling regime or because of opinions or news that is contrary to the official party line. It does this in an effort to prevent dissenters from organizing and coordinating effectively. It not only censors websites, but also monitors individual access. Doing this allows the government to crack down on protests and anti-government propaganda before they have a chance to flourish or become a major headache for them.

Recently, Iran suspended access to Google's Gmail service, so that the countries leaders could unveil a new national email system for Iranians. This is a thinly veiled attempt to control the populations internet activities, through monitoring and censorship of email. Most observers speculate that this because of recent protests over elections and because of the release of Google Buzz, a feature integrated into Gmail which aims to put Google on the social networking map.

(Links to the story about Iran:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/10/technology/google_iran_gmail/index.htm?eref=time_tech

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057621649270154.html

)

Both of these examples illustrate some of the reasons why this debate has become a big issue. Internet users can access information anywhere in the world. This means that governments now have less control over what the general population sees. Before the internet, people had limited sources to get their news, usually newspapers or television. These are much easier to censor or block than material on the internet is. With the advent of the internet, one could get news and communicate with people anywhere in the world. Now it was much harder for a government to claim one thing to tits citizens, when the rest of the world said another. At the same time, businesses, schools, and other users of the internet were looking for a way to maintain productivity, by preventing users from accessing certain websites which were unnecessary for work or school. This benign goal led to technology that made it easier to control the flow of information. Now internet access could be limited through software or hardware solutions. Naturally, governments such as China or Iran would want such technology to make it easier to patrol the internet within their borders. Of course this led to the development of methods to get around these blocks. Since then, the debate over free speech on the internet has grown to epic proportions.

There are other parts to this debate as well. Should companies be allowed to limit employees' access to certain websites? Should schools be allowed to block objectionable or offensive material from its networks? Should internet providers limit bandwidth, so as to prevent network slowdowns? Should governments be allowed to monitor individual internet access? Should people be allowed to say racist or inflammatory things online? Should the internet access of certain criminals be allowed?

There are no clear answers to any of these questions. What is clear is that there are pros and cons to both limited and unlimited access to information on the internet. Institutions such as schools and government offices argue that they need to protect internet access because otherwise their networks and security could be compromised. Businesses claim that without blocking some internet access, worker productivity would fall. Everyone is worried that objectionable material such as pornography or racist websites will be viewed in inappropriate places such as work or school, or that such material will be accessed by unsuitable users such as children or criminals. Most of the debates center around the need to protect users and networks from malicious software or objectionable material against the need to protect free speech rights. These issues are key drivers of the internet censorship debate. Resolving these issues will require a lot of give and take and both sides, which neither side seems willing to do. Until a compromise can be reached, this debate will rage on, wasting time and money of all those involved or affected by these issues.