internet censorship argument essay

• Blog Details
• November 04 2021

Averting our eyes: The controversy of internet censorship

Threefold advocate.

Pornography. Extremism. Fake News. Few words have as visceral an effect on a person as these. Together, these three items embody almost everything that is wrong in American society. And how has the government responded to their increase? By inviting them in as guests of honor through internet servers around the country.

Since its inception, the internet has been a nearly universal hub of information and activity. Everything from debates, auctions and photo albums is shared across the web in plain view of the public. Unfortunately, the internet contains much more sinister files than these. Pornography, drug deals and explicit content are all only a few clicks away from anyone with access to a computer. In this age, parents are forced to protect the eyes of their children from graphic content and sexual innuendos from the moment they touch their first device. Sexual addictions and crime rates across the country are on the rise and the vulgarity of the internet bears the brunt of the blame.

For years there has been an ongoing argument regarding the subject of internet censorship. Many groups claim that any content that someone desires to put on the web should be allowed to be posted. Others staunchly believe that the internet has become too explicit and harmful to be allowed to continue unchecked.

I believe that there is a difference between the restriction of useful information that can be applied and evaluated freely by consumers and the restriction of material that has little to no positive application. To be clear, I don’t believe that the internet needs to be dismantled. It is a wonderful tool with limitless potential for the improvement of mankind. But, I also believe that it is a tool that can easily be misused. Evil was not born on the day the internet was created, but it was given a new foster home. In the days of newspapers and encyclopedias, evil things were still captured and mass-produced but not on the scale that the internet allows them to be.

Much of the content on the internet including pornographic websites fall within that category of harmful material. These are things that have no potential to improve society and serve as a stumbling block to many who are exposed to them. We are becoming a culture that is more addicted, sexualized and uncaring than we ever have been before, and it is happening at a younger age than we have previously seen. Left unchecked, this exposure could lead to a dramatic shift in the moral values of American youth. When exposure to explicit content becomes normalized, other more socially unacceptable acts become more acceptable. Several scholars and studies have made the connection between rape acceptance and pornography exposure. Pornography is not simply images or videos; it is the breeding place of complacency and acceptance of heinous acts.

Another more controversial item needing censorship from the internet is websites and forums that foster extreme or criminal opinions. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime published a document that records multiple examples of how the internet has been used to foster terrorism across the globe. One of the main ways these groups use the internet to reach people is through propaganda, including messages, videos or games that intended to sway people to a more extreme mindset.

This topic becomes startling when we realize that none of this is actually prohibited. The UNODC states that “the dissemination of propaganda is generally not, in and of itself, a prohibited activity.” How is this not illegal? Criminal groups are embedding dangerous messages into the internet, and there is nothing the law can do to stop them.

The final commonality on the internet that needs to be regulated is fake news. As internet users, we are practically drowned in a flood of news. I understand that storylines will differ based on the perspective from which they are told, but an issue arises when two stories become irreconcilable. We are correct to assume that a narrative contains multiple storylines, but those lines should not contradict each other.

Somehow, individuals and news outlets manage to transform a single-threaded story into a web of self-contradiction and fallacy. Often, only a select few of those accounts are reasonably factual, leaving the rest as pure fiction, written to incite an emotional response in undiscerning people. It has become increasingly difficult to find cultural common ground with people around us because of the sheer quantity of fallacies we are fed. Humanity requires a standard to be set for news on the internet if groups are to begin to fix bridges and restore broken relationships.

But my viewpoint is uncommon. As a whole, the general American consensus is that freedom of speech should not be infringed. They cry that the First Amendment protects our freedom and keeps the government from influencing our lives. The American Constitution makes it clear that information should be free for all, and that it cannot be restricted by the government.

There is certainly justification in their fears. Governments should not be allowed to abuse their power to subjugate their citizens by scrubbing the internet. Many people fear what may happen to America if internet censorship is allowed. They fear that their freedom of speech will be infringed upon, and they will not be able to express their doubts and concerns to the public. In the opinion of many, internet censorship is the first step down the road leading to the eventual loss of freedom for Americans. Without freedom, innovation and progress will come to a standstill, leading to the undoing of American society.

The discussion regarding internet censorship is just one example of a larger ongoing debate. The core of this issue lies the question of man’s moral compass. If a man is born good, then there is no need to regulate content on the internet or anywhere else. But if man is inherently evil, regulation is imperative. Without guidance, humanity will slowly fall away from moral rightness, and we will begin to suffer the consequences of our arrogance.

The question also remains, who exists that is good enough to regulate us? Certainly not the government. They are human as well and have shown that they fall victim to the same errors as the public. The regulator would have to be a group with objective goals and moral uprightness. I am not sure if such a group exists. But if humanity has proven anything, it is that we are a people sorely in need of regulation if we are to remain on a path to improvement.

Posted by Threefold Advocate

Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Against civil rights, ignorance and misinformation, technically impossible, standardization, works cited.

The Internet is a worldwide electronic library with virtually any kind of information hence it is the greatest and most convenient source of information at the click of a button. Of all the diverse information available in the internet, some explicit information such as pornography, racism, ethnicity, crime and war are considered unethical and against strong virtues of the society.

The negative impacts of internet have raised many concerns over freedom of access and publishing of information, leading to the need to censor internet. Although censoring of internet can help in protecting virtues and culture, it is technically impossible, prohibits propagation of knowledge and against civil rights freedom of speech and press.

Internet censorship is against freedom of expression. The United States government attempted to control internet in 1996 when they passed Communication Decency Act but the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that it is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment of the Supreme Court (Valdes Cortes Para. 7).

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the internet freedom deserves much protection as books, newspapers, magazines and even as a nude statue in a museum (Para. 1). Therefore, it is unconstitutional to censor internet because people have the inalienable rights of freedom of speech and press so long as the civil rights are protected for the interest of justice.

Since internet is the greatest source of knowledge, the censorship of internet denies people access to vital information required in order to acquire knowledge. Insufficient information in the current society will led to misinformation or ignorance that is quite unrealistic (Yee Para 4).

Misinformation and ignorance completely outweigh the negative consequences of the free internet; it is better to have options and choice on the kind of information than be ignorant and misinformed. Modern society is fighting to eliminate ignorance and misinformation that are key democratic aspects of an open society, free of deception and secrecy.

Internet censorship is a way of controlling the minds of people as they say knowledge is power hence, leaders who are in power wants to control and regulate information access by their subjects so that they can continue gain more power while the subjects become more ignorant on pertinent issues that affects their lives (Yee Para 6).

Internet has made it hard for leaders to guard selfishly the knowledge to be within their own reach thus they are making futile attempts to control the flow of information worldwide. Free access of information from the internet have significantly enabled people to gain more and more knowledge making them have informed decisions in the kind of information and challenges they face because ignorance is no longer an excuse of not making the right decision in life..

Internet information is so vast and diverse to the extent that it will be impossible to censor the information in it. Technically, due to the overwhelming data and consequent complex encryption protocols involved, plus other technical factors makes internet censorship impossible (Chapman 132). Internet protocols are designed in such a way to avoid or prevent blocking. Moreover, internet is very dynamic in that censorship will be as futile excise as chasing the wind.

The internet has no boundaries unlike laws and legislations that are specific to a given territory. The Communication Decency Act left many questions unanswered; what is decency and who will determine decency? Diverse cultures in the world have different perceptions of what is ethical or not, what is decent or not, but a censor may have a different perception of what constitutes decent or ethical.

The diversity of cultures and legislations a cross the countries makes it impossible to have a standard internet censorship. According to the Americans Civil Liberties Union, internet censorship need to be put on the hands of the individual so that they can have autonomy to decides on the information they access or publish (Para 2).

Internet censorship is a noble idea of trying to conserve our cultures and traditions, but on contrary, we also need knowledge to eliminate ignorance that seems to perpetuate in this modern society. The positive impacts of free internet access of any information, outweighs by far its negative effects in the society.

Today, a society without access to information seems be in a dark world full of ignorance and misinformation that makes people behave as if they are blind to the current world issues that directly affects them. It is our inalienable right to access and publish information and the freedom of speech and expression are the integral aspect of information.

A democratic and prosperous society is based on the access of the right information used in the making of informed decisions a better society. The freedom to access information must be fought for, otherwise; people in the power will take advantage of our innocence and deny us the right to information that is necessary to rid of the ignorance in the society.

American Civil Liberties Union. “Censorship on Internet.” ACLU. 2010. Web.

Chapman, Gary. “Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints”. 1997. Greenhaven Press . Web.

Valdes Cortes. “ Margarita. Internet Censorship around the World .” University of Chile. 2010. Web.

Yee, Danny. “Internet Censorship: an Australian Press Council Seminar.” Electronic Frontiers Australia . 2010. Web.

• Telegraph and Its Impacts in Mass Communication
• Online Persona: Ethical Implications
• Censorship of Social Networking Sites in Developing Countries
• Censorship on the Internet
• Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering
• Impact of Modern Technology on Human Communication
• Google Search Engine and Yahoo Search Engine
• The LinkedIn Network and the Problem of Employment
• History of the Internet
• What Are the Causes of the Increased Lack of Internet Privacy?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 16). Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/

"Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." IvyPanda , 16 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society'. 16 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

1. IvyPanda . "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

• Skip to content

Harvard Law & Policy Review

Online Censorship Is Unavoidable—So How Can We Improve It?

By Ben Horton*

A few weeks ago, Professors Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods ignited controversy by suggesting in the Atlantic that China was right and America was wrong about internet censorship and surveillance. This seemingly contrarian stance rubbed people the wrong way , especially given reports that China’s online censorship delayed their response to COVID-19 and that Chinese agents have actively disseminated disinformation about the virus—and then attempted to suppress reports revealing their disinformation campaign .

Except the professors’ critics seem to have missed the point of their essay. Goldsmith and Woods said China was right that the internet inevitably would be censored and surveilled, not that China’s methods were normatively appealing.

Even discounting existing state surveillance and censorship on the internet in the United States, private surveillance and censorship is ubiquitous. And, notwithstanding our intuitions, most people want an internet that is subject to ubiquitous censorship—that is, “content moderation.”

Putting aside illegal content (child pornography, snuff films, etc.), most consumers do not want to be inundated with what Sarah Jeong has dubbed “ the internet of garbage .” They do not want to be harassed, bullied, threatened, or spammed on the internet. And in the midst of a global pandemic, they want to ensure disinformation is kept to a minimum. They want to limit harmful speech.

Part of our problem is we still think of speech burdens in a binary, on-off way. But especially online, the question is not whether you can find content, it is how hard it will be to be find and how much it will be amplified .

The question is not if there will be censorship and surveillance, [1] the question is who gets to do it, and how it is done. Right now a relatively small group of private actors make not only the substantive decisions about content on the internet, they decide the process that drives those decisions and how information flows through their networks. They wield enormous power , and are almost completely unaccountable to the public.

So, what are our options?

Option 1: Stay the Course

First, the United States could continue to shield tech companies from most tort-based liability for content posted on their platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , maintain an expansive view of the First Amendment, and not substantively regulate tech companies.

Supporters of the current system largely admit that ubiquitous content moderation is good, so long as it is private. They hold that a system of private speech regulation provides a market incentive for platforms to reach a Goldilocks-zone of content moderation : Enough harmful speech is blocked that it is possible to maintain deliberative communication amid the noise, but not so much that deliberative communication is also blocked. Consumers have a choice, and services that fail to moderate will either fail or be consigned to the dark corners of the internet .

But how real is that choice? Alphabet owns the two most popular websites in the world. Facebook (through its eponymous service and Instagram), Twitter, and Reddit collectively dominate U.S. social media . Over the past twenty years who has rivaled them? MySpace? Snapchat? Yahoo!? Tumblr? Even including these rivals, American consumers have had two significant options for their search engines and four or five social media sites. And, at least in part, that lack of choice is due to the inaction by antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice when Google bought YouTube and when Facebook acquired Instagram . In a monopolistic environment consumers can try to campaign for changes to private companies’ policies, but their effectiveness might rely on some of the substantive regulations discussed below.

As Evelyn Douek has argued, these platforms are increasingly cooperative in their moderation decision-making , making consumer choice even more illusory. YouTube’s policies on terrorism-related content are not significantly different than Facebook’s or Twitter’s because they all belong to the same private group that develops those standards. Facebook’s new Oversight Board is probably a step in the right direction, but what happens if it becomes the de facto decision-maker for social media standards generally?

Finally, the market theory is contingent on the assumption that people choose their networks based on the ability of the network to curate information. But the profit incentive of social media companies is to increase our engagement—which might mean pushing harmful content on users , or at least enabling that sort of thing ( until they’re caught ). The negative effects of this content might be exaggerated , but without greater transparency we just don’t know.

Aside from the harms of disinformation, staying the course has the additional drawback of eliminating the United States from the global conversation about internet governance. As Microsoft President Brad Smith mentioned in a recent interview , in the future, tech companies may simply adapt their products to the regulations of the European Union and other Western democracies that lack stringent First Amendment or Section 230 protections against government involvement in online speech. We already see this to some extent with the NetzDG law in Germany, which, if nothing else, is offering us some useful transparency on content moderation.

Or tech companies themselves might simply decide how public health crises are managed .

Either way, the United States government, for better or worse, will simply not have much of a say in what the internet looks like.

Option 2: Content-Based Regulations

For constitutional reasons, the approach of regulating speech based on its content is closed off to the United States. There is a lively academic debate about the status of lies and hate speech under the First Amendment. But absent a political revolution, it will remain an academic debate. The Supreme Court has said, in an 8-1 opinion , it will not open up new “uncovered” zones of speech. Content-based regulations of harmful speech will continue to be subject to strict scrutiny, and they will continue to be struck down.

In the U.S. context, at least for the foreseeable future, content-based censorship will continue to be ubiquitous and limited to private actors. That does not mean we need to leave the speech moderating apparatus entirely to the private sector.

Option 3: Torts, Competition, Process, and Friction

Contrary to cyber-libertarians, the options available are not limited to “censorship” or no regulation at all. We have other tools at our disposal. The key is to focus on content-neutral regulations, especially those that govern the flow of information rather than regulations that criminalize certain content.

As a threshold matter, these policies do not have to—and likely will not—take the form of flat bans and mandates. They might be conditions attached to liability immunities or tax incentives, and they can—and should—distinguish between different types of online services. Of course, companies have been lobbied, and should be lobbied, to make these changes on their own; I am arguing that there is some role for direct government regulation in these realms.

First, we could reform Section 230. While supporters maintain that Section 230 is necessary to ensure that platforms can engage in decent moderation without fear of liability , detractors argue that a well-crafted alternative could still shield sites that engage in good-faith moderation without shielding sites that are designed to facilitate human trafficking , for instance. And regardless of where you stand on the 230 debate, given bipartisan support for both SESTA – FOSTA and the delayed “ EARN IT Act ,” 230 as we know it is unlikely to survive. If we want sensible intermediary liability protection, and not a patchwork of exceptions that probably make the internet less safe, the 230-or-nothing stance is increasingly politically untenable.

Second, we can advocate for regulations that promote competition, creating a market where consumers have real choices and their choices make a difference. This need not be the traditional “breaking up” of companies given the beneficial network effects consumers find in centralized services and the possible aggravation of harm that a balkanized internet could bring . Pro-competition policy could start with blocking the sale of startups to Facebook and Google . It could include the imposition of substantive requirements, like an information fiduciary responsibility or interoperability requirement on organizations with a certain share of the market. Any regulations, however, need to be sensitive to the needs of non-profits with large user bases and low revenues .

Third, and more controversially, we can require more transparent processes in content moderation. A number of organizations have released and advocated for the “ Santa Clara Principles .” These include, at a minimum, publishing the number of posts and accounts taken down organized by the category of violation, providing notice to users whose accounts or posts are taken down, and instituting some kind of appeal process. If content-based moderation decisions are largely going to be done by private actors, their legitimacy relies on being transparent and understandable to the public. Even if changes are brought about by private pressure, we cannot collectively criticize and improve on secret processes .

Finally, and most controversially, maybe we can impose content-neutral, friction-creating regulations that force consumers to be more deliberate in sharing and consuming information. For instance, WhatsApp recently limited its forwarding function so that any messages that come from a chain of more than five people must be forwarded one chat at a time. This type of rule is not content-based; it applies to speech based on its virality, not the “topic, idea or message” communicated. Disclosure requirements—revealing, for example, whether or not a human is speaking —might also increase friction and deliberation. And some regulations of social media’s “frictionless” design might be allowable under the First Amendment.

These regulations avoid the hard epistemological questions and constitutional hurdles of defining harmful speech. They regulate the flow of information regardless of its content instead of worrying about speech concerning a particular topic. Furthermore, they ban no speech—deliberate communication is unaffected.

There are pros and cons to every policy mentioned, with administrability challenges and constitutional issues . But to reach a substantive discussion of the realistic possibilities for regulation in the U.S. context, the conversation needs to move beyond the false binary of “censorship versus free speech.”

* Ben Horton is a rising 3L at Harvard Law School and an Online Editor for HLPR.

[1] I am not talking about the problems of surveillance presented by innovations like the Ring doorbell , or facial recognition . I am referring to the level of surveillance necessary to ensure that speech is successfully moderated on platforms—being able to tie punishments to certain accounts, for example. That overlaps with the problems of online behavioral manipulation and surveillance capitalism, which I am not addressing in this post.

Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 08 May 2020
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Md Nurul Momen 4  

285 Accesses

Freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and impart information without restrictions by state authorities.

Introduction

Internet is regarded as an important issue that shapes free expression in today’s volatile nature of human rights world (Momen 2020 ). In the digital age, authoritarian governments in the world always attempt to undermine political and social movement through the complete shutdown of the Internet or providing partial access to it. It is also found that the restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are through surveillance and monitoring the online activities. In response to any kind of political and social movement, authoritarian governments across the border occasionally shut down many websites, along with the arrest of several anti-government bloggers and political activists. However, under the international legal instruments, for instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), denial of the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ariffin, L. J. (2012). Rais backs Dr M call for curbs to Internet freedom . https://www.malaysia-today.net/2012/06/05/rais-backs-dr-m-call-for-curbs-to-internet-freedom/ . Accessed 10 June 2018.

Arnaudo, D., Alva, A., Wood, P., & Whittington, J. (2013). Political and economic implications of authoritarian control of the internet. In J. Butts & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Critical infrastructure protection VII (IFIP AICT) (Vol. 417, pp. 3–19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Cristiano, F. (2019). Internet access as human right: A dystopian critique from the occupied Palestinian territory. In G. Blouin-Genest, M. C. Doran, & S. Paquerot (Eds.), Human rights as battlefields (Human rights interventions). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91770-2_12 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21 (3), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0190 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Freedom House. (2019). Freedom on the Net . Washington DC/New York, Retrieved from https://www.freedomonthenet.org/countries-in-detail

Hill, D. T. (2002). East Timor and the Internet: Global political leverage in/on Indonesia. Indonesia, 73 , 25–51.

Kee, J. S. (2012). Bad laws won’t stop cyber crime . https://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/28/bad-laws-stop-cyber-crime/?doing_wp_cron . Accessed 10 June 2019.

Momen, M. N. (2020). Myth and reality of freedom of expression on the Internet. International Journal of Public Administration, 43 (3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1628055 .

Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global Internet governance. International Affairs, 91 (1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12189 .

Randall, J. (1996). Of cracks and crackdown: Five translations of recent Internet postings. Indonesia, 62 , 37–51.

Rodan, G. (1998). The Internet and political control in Singapore. Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1), 63–89.

Shirokanova, A., & Silyutina, O. (2018). Internet regulation: A text-based approach to media coverage. In D. A. Alexandrov et al. (Eds.), Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS) 2018 (Communications in computer and information science (CCIS)) (Vol. 858, pp. 181–194). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_15 .

Ziccardi, G. (2013). Digital activism, internet control, transparency, censorship, surveillance and human rights: An international perspective. In Resistance, liberation technology and human rights in the digital age (Law, governance and technology series) (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md Nurul Momen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Nurul Momen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Alberta, Alberta, AB, Canada

Scott Romaniuk

University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

Manish Thapa

Nemzetkozi Tanulmanyok Intezet, Rm 503, Corvinus Univ, Inst of Intl Studies, Budapest, Hungary

Péter Marton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Momen, M.N. (2019). Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship. In: Romaniuk, S., Thapa, M., Marton, P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Received : 15 March 2018

Accepted : 29 June 2019

Published : 08 May 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues

Essay Samples on Internet Censorship

Stand against censorship: unveiling the dangers.

Do you feel like you are being watched on while using the Internet? This essay argues against censorship, highlighting the dangers it poses to personal freedom and democracy, and provides examples of countries like China where censorship is used to control and manipulate the public....

• Internet Censorship

Censorship Advantages and Disadvantages in the Media: My View

Censorship in the media is a controversial topic that I can't stop think about. There is a lot of debate about censorship, its advantages and disadvantages, so in this essay I will briefly explore this topic with a focus on media censorship. First of all...

• Impact of Media
• Social Media

Internet Censorship: an In-Depth Look on the Pros and Cons

Introduction In this sophisticated technology-oriented world, the Internet is considered as one of the latest inventions of science and technology. Undoubtedly, nowadays, almost every walk of human life has been influenced by the Internet. Even though the Internet has provided a plethora of resources to...

Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship: Unveiling the Web

Introduction In this paper, I will be discussing the internet, the advantages and disadvantages of internet censorship, and how we can effectively control and censor the content on the web, in particular, the problems arising due to censorship. Definitely, Internet Censorship is a hot topic...

• Internet Privacy

The Negative Impacts of Censorship on the Internet

This paper will be primarily focused on the various problems stemming from the censorship of materials found on the internet. Extending from that, it will discuss the author’s opinions on the best possible way for the regulation of posts on the internet. Finally, this paper...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online

One doesn’t have to spend much time at all on the internet to realize that censorship is present to some extent in nearly all online forums. Any platform which allows users to post original thoughts in the form of words, pictures, and videos, typically has...

• Free Speech
• Freedom of Speech

Limiting Human Independence by Abusing Censorship: List of Countries with Strict Censorship Laws

Currently, the Internet has become no substitute for people around the world. Some are delighted with the opportunities offered by the Internet, others are neutral to the world wide web, and still others see a threat to the country. For most state regimes, the unchanged...

• Types of Human Rights

Best topics on Internet Censorship

1. Stand Against Censorship: Unveiling the Dangers

2. Censorship Advantages and Disadvantages in the Media: My View

3. Internet Censorship: an In-Depth Look on the Pros and Cons

4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship: Unveiling the Web

5. The Negative Impacts of Censorship on the Internet

6. Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online

7. Limiting Human Independence by Abusing Censorship: List of Countries with Strict Censorship Laws

• Discrimination
• Pornography
• Black Lives Matter
• Women's Rights
• Anti Slavery Movement
• Affirmative Action

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Free essays

We use cookies to make your user experience better.

By staying on our website, you fully accept it. Read more » It's OK

Internet Censorship

Get a price quote

Save 15% OFF on your 1st order

The reasons why the Internet should not be censored

The main reason against Internet censorship is stated in the first amendment. According to it, the government must not adopt any laws that can restrict “the freedom of speech or of the press” (U.S. Constitution). This means that any attempts to regulate the content on the Internet would be a violation of the basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This rule cannot be broken even if the content that the government wants to prohibit is unacceptable. As the US Supreme Court stated it: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable” (Texas v. Johnson). Therefore, censorship of the Internet is against the basic human rights that are guaranteed by first amendment.

The second reason against Internet censorship is that it can be used by the government to get more power and control. There is an opinion that government is fair only when it is open and transparent. The freedom of the Internet also means that people can say whatever they want, which includes direct contradictions to the government. When the Internet is censored, it is more difficult for people to express their opinions and reporting the news becomes more challenging. On the contrary, it is easier for the government to control the population and break its own rules. Moreover, if the government gets the power to know what people see, hear and write on the Internet, much more trouble may arise. Such power located in one hands, the hands of the government, may be abused very easily. When the Internet is censored, every single person, excluding the government, is at the disadvantage. Moreover, it will eradicate any opposition to oppression that was expressed in the web.

Another argument against Internet censorship is that it may be used to promote only certain morals. People have different opinions and have different ways to live their life. Nobody knows which opinion or whose way of thinking is correct. The enforcement of Internet censorship may lead to a situation when it will be used to promote only those opinions and believes that are considered to be morally right. At the same time, ignoring opinions that are different may be offending for other people, as in the lawsuit filed by ACLU against the Camdenton R-III School District in 2012. In this case, the school used special software to block access to websites that supported LGBT people (“PFLAG v. Camdenton R-III School District”). However, this software allowed access to anti-LGBT websites. Since the administration did not solve the problem after it was informed about it, this led to a lawsuit against the school (“PFLAG v. Camdenton R-III School District”). Allowing access to one side of the question and prohibiting opposing views is called discrimination, and that is exactly what will happen if Internet censorship is imposed.

Our outstanding writers are mostly educated to MA and PhD level

Moreover, Internet censorship goes against the whole point of the Internet itself. The Internet was created to help people share information with their family and friends. People use it to share interesting and creative viewpoints. Censorship of the Internet may stop them from doing it. Therefore, if the Internet is censored, it will go against the nature of the Internet itself.

Arguments for censoring the Internet

On the other hand, the proponents of Internet censorship claim that it is a good idea to censor the Internet because the Internet is a dangerous place and its users need more protection. Their main argument is protecting children. There are a number of things that children need to be protected from. The first one is websites that contain material for adults. Everybody knows that there is a lot of content on the Internet that is not appropriate for children. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the Internet is full of improper and pornographic websites. Those websites present all types of sexually implicit material. Therefore, people claim that it is important to censor the Internet to guard children from impropriate material.

The second thing that children need to be protected from is the cruelty that can be found on the Internet. Very often children tend to think that hurting other people is a normal thing because they have read some story or watched a video on the Internet in which other people committed violence. The point here is that the Internet should be censored because it has a bad influence on the young generation.

The third and probably the most important thing from which children need protection are perverts. Perverts and pedophiles often use the Internet to look for victims. It is much easier to find some young and na?ve child in the virtual world than in the real one. As a result, children are engaged into pornography and even more malevolent activities. Therefore, censoring the Internet will help to punish the lawbreakers and prevent more children from falling victims to perverts.

Another argument of people who support Internet censorship is that the society needs regulation. The advocates of censorship argue that it will help to control the mass media, which is a necessary thing for the authority. The government may censor some information that they think is harmful for the society. Moreover, all forms of the mass media except the Internet are regulated. Newspapers, television and radio have to follow specific regulations and rules. The Internet does not have to be any different from the other forms of the mass media. Regulation cannot be a bad thing; it leads to order, and order is good.

In addition, the freedom of speech and expression should also have some limits. Take, for instance, social networks. The use of such services among the children of school-age is enormous: half of the children from eight to seventeen have online profiles (Moore). Recently some websites such as social networking sites have been used to hurt others on purpose. In some extreme case the victims of cyber bullying even committed suicide (Moore). The use of social websites can cause both physical and psychological harm. That is why the advocates of Internet censorship consider them to be dangerous. They are a medium through which prejudice and racism can be expressed towards the others. In addition, if in a particular country, the majority of the population shares the same religious or cultural believes, it is fair to block the websites that are trying to sabotage these principles and may cause damage to the majority of the population. The government has a duty to protect its citizens and take care of them; one of the best ways to do this is to censor the Internet and abolish the websites that are dangerous.

Why the arguments of the advocates of Internet censorship do not work

Any referencing Style

Reputable & up-to-date Sources

We Work Even with Tight Deadlines

Proponents of censorship also say that all other mass media sources are controlled and the Internet shall not be different. It is true that other sources of information are regulated. That is the exact reason why the Internet should not be. The Internet was created for people to share the information they want; it is a free forum for information sharing, and taking this away is a cruel act against regular citizens who want uncensored and reliable information.

The cases when social networks are used for violence are very rare. Furthermore, they can also be used for good reasons. For instance, many social networks have campaigns against domestic violence and racism (“Teenagers’ Poem to Aid domestic Abuse Facebook Campaign”). It is a good idea to use social networks to help teenagers with their problems because they are more likely to share their problems online than in real life. As Det. Supt John Clements puts it: “Using Facebook is helping us reach a young audience and inform them about what is good and bad in relationships, as well as give them information about help and support available” (“Teenagers’ Poem to Aid domestic Abuse Facebook Campaign”). Furthermore, the action of blocking websites endangers the beliefs of the others. At what point the website that expresses opinions of religious minorities becomes dangerous and unsuitable. Moreover, such action will lead to violation of the first amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (U.S. Constitution). Such action can be easily taken as limitation of the freedom of speech of certain groups and may lead to aggression towards the government, the groups or cultures that are perceived as oppressors of these groups. The government cannot block some idea just because it is considered to be impropriate: “The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable” (Texas v. Johnson). Therefore, Internet censorship will only lead to more problems and aggression.

To sum up, Internet censorship is a highly debated topic in the modern society. There are advocates of this problem who claim that it is too dangerous for children if not censored. The opponents claim that censorship will violate the basic human rights, the freedom of speech in particular. However, other people may claim that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. Therefore, Internet censorship will not violate the freedom of speech but rather eradicate prejudice and hatred in speech. However, it is important to note that if the problems of prejudice, racism and hatred exist in the society, the only solution is to solve the problem and not to censor such content on the Internet. If the government just hides the problem, it will only worsen the situation. The advocates of censorship may always claim that the government can control certain Internet websites if it affects their society. However, people have a right to make their own decisions and receive all information. If the government shares all information with its citizens, the society is more likely to trust the government. The proponents of censorship may also argue that despite the costs and problems of imposing censorship, it is vital to protect the children and thus the funds will be found. However, there is another problem to be solved. For instance, Internet censorship creates a question about what content should be considered impropriate and what websites should be censored. This problem will bring even more controversy than the topic of Internet censorship itself. Therefore, it may be assumed that Internet censorship will not solve the problems that the web causes and will not end the controversy that exists in the society. On contrary, it will bring even more problems and dangers than already exist. Live Chat Order now

Essay Service Examples Sociology Censorship

Argumentative Essay about Censorship

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Text 1: This is about the “Sesame Street” children's censorship program

Introduction, explaining the sesame street censorship, text 2: this is about the “best of families” children's censorship program, explanation.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Chinese Culture

Han Fei was a philosopher who believed that not only healthy relationships can unite China but...

• Fahrenheit 451
• Ray Bradbury

When one is drawn away from life’s realities, by censorship, doubts begin to be made on one’s true...

• Literature Review

In a society of book burners it is hard to not be ignorant and censored. These people are being...

• Social Media

Having social media can have many ethical and legal implications. Social media such as Facebook’s...

According to the Lexico Dictionary, censorship is defined as the suppression or repudiation of any...

• Movie Analysis

If one’s friend jumps off a bridge would they follow? Most people are asked this question because...

• Criminal Behavior

Censorship has been around throughout the ages of history. It can be seen in the earliest time...

A society filled with wide television screens, fast cars, and the complete banishment of...

To censor or not to censor? This has been a popular topic of conversation, particularly amongst...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Google Is a Monopolist,’ Judge Rules in Landmark Antitrust Case

The ruling on Google’s search dominance was the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant.

• Share full article

By David McCabe

Reporting from Washington

Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, a federal judge ruled on Monday , a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta said in his ruling.

The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online — and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech’s power. It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago.

“This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it’s the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school who studies antitrust. “It’s a huge turning point.”

The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google’s success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Internet Censorship — Why The Internet Should Be Censored

Why The Internet Should Be Censored

• Categories: Censorship Internet Censorship

About this sample

Words: 397 |

Published: Apr 11, 2022

Words: 397 | Page: 1 | 2 min read

Works Cited

• Chaudhry, P., & Yousaf, R. (2015). Cyberbullying in Pakistan: An Exploratory Investigation. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9(2), 134-149.
• Chen, R., Ang, R. P., & He, W. (2008). Internet use and cyberbullying among Chinese adolescents: Mediating effects of self-esteem. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(9), 777-790.
• Dhir, A., Yossatorn, Y., Kaur, P., & Chen, S. (2018). Online social media fatigue and psychological wellbeing—A study of compulsive use, fear of missing out, fatigue, anxiety and depression. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 141-152.
• Duggan, M., Lenhart, A., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. (2015). Parents and social media. Pew Research Center.
• Frosio, G. F. (2019). Reconciling Copyright with Cumulative Creativity: The Third Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.
• Hugenholtz, P. B. (2006). The expanding scope of the piracy conundrum. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(1/2), 127-143.
• Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Policy Press.
• Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 635-654.
• McSherry, C. (2011). Unmasking the evils of internet censorship: Aim, scope, and consistency of filtering in twelve countries. UC Davis L. Rev., 45, 853.
• Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 53-81.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1103 words

1 pages / 540 words

1 pages / 636 words

2 pages / 1085 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Internet Censorship

The internet has become a communication tool that our society widely depends on for entertainment, office work, domestic jobs, and most importantly for educational research. For example, the internet is critical to the U.S. [...]

The enforcing of net neutrality has undoubtedly brought much benefit to Internet consumers, however those that oppose it bring up some valid points of consideration as well. After evaluating these points, my personal view on net [...]

The advent of the internet has revolutionized the way we access information, communicate, and interact with the world. However, with this immense connectivity comes the challenge of balancing the freedom of expression and the [...]

Why is it important to people in same-sex relationships for gay marriage to be legalized? In the United States, there are only 14 states in which gay couples can marry. (Quin, Campbell) The truth is those who are homosexuals do [...]

The discourse of human rights in Chiapas is an incredibly nuanced one. While from our Western perspective, human rights is thought of as an objective constant, an imperative asset of any sensible civilization, it is not so [...]

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act also known as the ADA enacted to law. This act is a civil rights law that bans discrimination against people with disabilities in public as well as in the work place, educational [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free