Venta de animales

The Internet (World Wide Web) is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass communication and information distribution in the world. In the last 10 years concern has increased about the Internet disseminating content that is violent and sexual, that gives bomb-making instructions, that abets terrorist activity, and that makes available child pornography. In response, some have called for censorship. But even if censorship of the Internet can be morally justified, practical problems with regulation arise.

PROS

Although democratic nations value freedom of speech, all put some restrictions on the right. Such restrictions usually surround hard-core and child pornography, but some nations restrict hate speech as well. The Internet should be no exception to these basic standards. Truly offensive material is no different because it is published on the Web.

Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium. Accordingly, a higher level of censorship is attached to television, films, and video than to newspapers and books: We recognize that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and powerful than text, photographs, or illustrations. Videos are normally more regulated than films seen in theaters because the viewer of a video has control of the medium—the power to rewind, view again, and distribute more widely. The Internet, which increasingly uses video and sound, should be regulated accordingly.

CONS

Censorship is usually evil. Governments should avoid it wherever possible. Child pornography is an extreme example; sufficient legislation is already in place to handle those who attempt to produce, distribute, or view such material. Other forms of speech may well be offensive, but the only way a society can counter such speech is to be exposed to it and have it out in the open. Without such freedom, these groups are driven underground and can take on the aspect of martyrs.

The distinction between censorship of print and broad- cast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Print media are comparatively unregulated because they are the primary means of distributing information in society. In the near future, the Internet may become this prime dis- seminator. Thus the Internet must be allowed the same protections now enjoyed by print media. When English philosopher John Stuart Mill considered freedom of speech and the Founding Fathers of the United States spoke in the Constitution of freedom of the press they were concerned about the primary and most powerful

12|The Debatabase Book

The Internet would be hard to control, but we must not use that as an excuse not to try. Preventing the sale of snuff movies or hard-core pornography is extremely dif- ficult, but some governments do so because they deem it important. A more intractable issue is the anonym- ity that the Internet provides pornographers and crimi- nals. Asian countries have experimented with requiring citizens to provide identification before posting content on the Web. If universally adopted, such a requirement could be a relatively simple way of enforcing laws against truly offensive and harmful content.

In many countries producing libelous material or mate- rial that incites racial hatred incurs multiple liability. Where the author or publisher cannot be traced or is insolvent, the printers can often be sued or prosecuted. The relatively small number of Internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provi- sion of dangerous or harmful information.

The issues at stake in this debate—protection of chil- dren, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred, etc., are all international problems. If a global solution is required, it can be achieved by international cooperation and trea- ties. All societies consider censorship justified where harm is caused to others by the speech, words, or art. All the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initia- tives listed above, we could limit that harm.

organ of information distribution at that time, the print press. Nowadays they would more likely be concerned with preventing censorship of the broadcast media and the Internet.

Even allowing for the extreme problems surrounding curtailment of freedom of speech, Internet censorship would be more or less impossible. Governments can attempt to regulate what is produced in their own coun- tries but regulating material originating outside national borders would be impossible. What is the point in the US removing all domestic links to hard-core pornogra- phy when such material from the UK or Sweden could be readily accessed and downloaded? Individuals could also produce banned material and store it in an overseas domain. True freedom of speech requires anonymity in some cases to protect the author. Governments that have introduced ID requirements for Internet use also deny many basic rights to their citizens. The Internet allows citizens to criticize their government and distribute news and information without reprisal from the state. These freedoms clearly could not survive Internet ID require- ments.

Internet service providers (ISP) are certainly the wrong people to decide what can and cannot be placed on the Internet. Big business already controls far too much of this new technology without also making it judge and jury of all Internet content. In any case, the sheer bulk of information ISPs allow to be published is such that reviewing it all would be impossible. Were ISPs to be held liable for allowing such material to be displayed, they would inevitably err on the side of caution to pro- tect their financial interests. This 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-reg- ulation by the industry, not the imposition of arbitrary and draconian restrictions on Internet content and use. Parents can install software that will filter out offensive sites and sites inappropriate for children.

PROS CONS

Sample Motions:

This House would censor the Internet. This House calls for Net filters.

Web Links:

• Electronic Frontier Foundation. <http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html> Offers summaries of issues involving Internet censor- ship as well as information on fair use and privacy on the Web.

• Internet Censorship FAQ. <http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/faq.html> Responses to frequently asked questions about Inter- net censorship by authors of a book on the subject.

Further reading:

Herumin, Wendy. Censorship on the Internet: From Filters to Freedom of Speech. Enslow, 2004.

Kolbert, Kathryn. Justice Talking: Censoring the Web: Leading Advocates Debate Today’s Most Controversial Issues. New Press, 2001. Peck, Robert. Libraries, the First Amendment and Cyberspace: What You Need to Know. American Library Association, 1999.

