Respond to the following in a minimum of 250 words:
- Discuss 1 the case studies from Ch. 3, "Networked Communications," of Ethics for the Information Age.
- Provide your opinion on which ethical analysis you support, and why. Does your analysis change if you take a global perspective?
1121579 - Pearson Education Limited © 3.6 Censorship Censorship is the attempt to suppress or regulate public access to material considered offensive or harmful. Historically, most censorship has been exercised by governments and religious institutions. For example, Roman censors banished the poets Ovid and Juvenal for their writings. During the Middle Ages the Inquisition suppressed the publication of many books, including the work of Galileo Galilei. Censorship became a much more complicated issue with the invention of the printing press. The printing press broke the virtual monopoly held by governments and religious institutions on distributing material to a large audience, and the increase in printed material resulted in a greater number of literate people. For the first time, private individuals could broadcast their ideas to others on a wide scale. In Western democracies, the gradual separation of church and state left the government as the sole institution responsible for censorship. In other parts of the world, such as the Middle East, religious institutions continue to play a significant role in determining what material should be accessible to the public. 3.6.1 Direct Censorship Direct censorship has three forms: government monopolization, prepublication review, and licensing and registration. The first form of direct censorship is government monopolization. In the former Soviet Union, for example, the government owned all the television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Private organizations could not even own a photocopy machine. Government monopolization is an effective way to suppress the flow of information. Modern computer and communication technology makes government monopolization much more difficult than in the past. Prepublication review is the second form of direct censorship. This form of censorship is essential for material the government wishes to keep secret, such as information about its nuclear weapons program. Most governments have laws restricting the publication of information that would harm national security. In addition, autocratic governments typically block publication of material deemed injurious to the reputations of their rulers. The third form of direct censorship is licensing and registration. This form of censorship is typically used to control media with limited bandwidth. For example, only a limited number of radio and television stations can be accommodated on the electromagnetic spectrum. Hence a radio or television station 1121579 - Pearson Education Limited © must obtain a license to broadcast at a particular frequency. Licensing invites censorship. For example, the US Federal Communications Commission has banned the use of certain four-letter words. This led to a challenge that went all the way to the US Supreme Court, as we see in Section 3.7.3 . 3.6.2 Self-Censorship Perhaps the most common form of censorship is self-censorship: a group deciding for itself not to publish material. In some countries a publisher may censor itself in order to avoid persecution. For example, after US-led forces toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan, admitted that CNN had suppressed negative information about the actions of the Iraqi government for more than a decade in order to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and protect Iraqi employees of CNN [64]. In other countries, publishers may want to maintain good relations with government officials. Publications compete with each other for access to information. Often this information is available only from government sources. Publishers know that if they offend the government, their reporters may not be given access to as much information as reporters for rival publications, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. This knowledge can lead a “free” press to censor itself. Publishers have adopted ratings systems as a way of helping people decide if they (or their children) should access particular offerings. For example, television stations in the United States broadcast shows with “mature content” late in the evening. Voluntary ratings systems help people decide if they (or their children) will see a movie, watch a television show, or listen to a CD. The Web does not have a universally accepted ratings system. Some Web sites practice a form of labeling. For example, the home page may warn the user that the site contains nudity and require the user to click on an “I agree” button to enter the site. However, other sites have no such warnings. People who stumble onto these sites are immediately confronted with images and text they may find offensive. 3.6.3 Challenges Posed by the Internet Five characteristics of the Internet make censorship more difficult: 1. Unlike traditional one-to-many broadcast media, the Internet supports many-to-many communications. While it is relatively easy for a government to shut down a newspaper or a radio station, it is more difficult for a government to prevent an idea from being published on the Internet, where millions of people have the ability to post Web pages. 2. The Internet is dynamic. Millions of new devices are being connected to the Internet each year. 3. The Internet is huge. file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000DB0.html#P7001016046000000000000000000DCE file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000102D 1121579 - Pearson Education Limited © There is simply no way a team of human censors can keep track of everything that is posted on the Web. While automated tools are available, they are fallible. Hence any attempt to control access to material stored on the Internet cannot be 100 percent effective. 4. The Internet is global. National governments have limited authority to restrict activities happening outside their borders. 5. It is hard to distinguish between children and adults on the Internet. How can an “adult” Web site verify the age of someone attempting to enter the site? 3.6.4 Government Filtering and Surveillance of Internet Content Despite the difficulties facing those who would seek to censor Internet content, studies reveal that governments around the globe are in fact limiting access to the Internet in a variety of ways [65]. One approach is to make the Internet virtually inaccessible. In North Korea, for example, only about 14,000 people have access to the Internet, representing 0.1% of the population [66]. In other countries, Internet access is easier but still carefully controlled. For example, the Internet backbone in Saudi Arabia is owned by the government, and all Internet traffic to and from the rest of the world flows through two gateways, which block pornography sites, gambling sites, and many other pages deemed to be offensive to Islam or the government of Saudi Arabia [67]. The Chinese government has blocked access to the Internet during times of social unrest. For example, in July 2009, China responded to ethnic riots in the autonomous region of Xinjiang by turning off Internet service to the entire region for 10 months [68, 69]. In addition, China has built one of the world’s most sophisticated Web filtering systems [70]. The Great Firewall of China prevents Chinese citizens from accessing certain Internet content by blocking messages coming from blocklisted sites, which include Google, YouTube, and Facebook [71]. According to Freedom House, the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department employs “hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to monitor, censor, and manipulate online content” [71]. The government shuts down Web sites and censors blogs that criticize government policy, discuss politically sensitive topics, or provide information that puts the government in a bad light. Among the Web sites blocklisted by the government include those containing pornography, those associated with the Dalai Lama or the Falun Gong, those referring to the 1989 military crackdown, and those run by certain news organizations, such as Voice of America and BBC News. Before the 2008 Summer Olympics, the International Olympic Committee assured journalists that they would have unfettered access to the Internet during their stay in Beijing, but once the journalists arrived in Beijing, they discovered that many sites were blocked. The International Olympic Committee admitted that it had agreed to allow the file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000102F file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001032 file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001034 file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001036 file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001038 file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000103A file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000103C file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000103C 1121579 - Pearson Education Limited © Chinese government to block sensitive sites “not considered Games related” [72]. The Chinese government is also trying to find ways to regulate access to virtual private networks, which many Chinese use to circumvent the Great Firewall [71]. Meanwhile, Western nations have different standards about what is acceptable and what is not. For example, Germany forbids access to any neo-Nazi Web site, but Web surfers in the United States can access many such sites. Political satire and pornography are easily available through American ISPs. Americans are used to political satire, but many citizens are concerned about the corrupting influence of pornography, particularly on minors. Since 1996 the US Congress has passed three laws aimed at restricting children’s access to sexually explicit material on the Web: the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The first two laws were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court; the third was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2003. 3.6.5 Ethical Perspectives on Censorship It is interesting that Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, who had quite different ethical theories, had similar views regarding censorship. Kant’s Views on Censorship As a thinker in the tradition of the Enlightenment, Kant’s motto was, “Have courage to use your own reason” [73]. Kant asks the rhetorical question, “Why don’t people think for themselves?” and answers it: “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction, nevertheless remain under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay—others will readily undertake the irksome work for me” [73, p. 85]. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the institutional control over thought held by the aristocracy and the Church. Kant believed he was living in a time in which the obstacles preventing people from exercising their own reason were being removed. He opposed censorship as a backward step. Mill’s Views on Censorship John Stuart Mill also championed freedom of expression. He gave four reasons why freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression of opinion, were necessary. First, none of us is infallible. All of us are capable of error. If we prevent someone from voicing their opinion, we may actually be silencing the voice of truth. file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000103E file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P700101604600000000000000000103C file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001040 file://view/books/9780135217993/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP7001016046000000000000000000EB4.html#P7001016046000000000000000001040 1121579 - Pearson Education Limited © Second, while the opinion expressed by someone may be erroneous, it may yet contain a kernel of truth. In general, the majority opinion is not the whole truth. We ought to let all opinions be voiced so that all parts of the truth are heard