When does censorship apply to the internet?
28 February 2008
The internet is a marvellous way to find or relay information, but how free should speech be? And who decides?
It’s a tricky one. At Hayes Towers, we cast a glance over the internet sites that our sons go on. Partly to check they are not on KatiePrice.com instead of researching Norman castles! More importantly, though, to see that they are not chatting to strangers claiming to be a 12year old, into Charlton Athletic and Akon. All this is done to protect our children.
We encourage them to use books to look up people and places for school projects as well as Wikepedia, even though they huff about the time it takes. So, we encourage them to look at more than one site, to double-check facts, dates, numbers etc. After all, we remind them, anyone can post anything on the internet. All this is done to broaden our children’s knowledge and build on their inquiring minds.
So what happens when governments take this protective approach? This week, Pakistan’s telecoms authority deny ordering internet providers to block YouTube. It did admit issuing a blocking order, taking over some of the net addresses assigned to YouTube, re-routing traffice. On Tuesday, YouTube removed the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and a trailer for a Dutch film, criticising Islam.
Thailand also banned YouTube early last year, for five months, when it refused to remove video clips of feet pointing at King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Feet are considered dirty and offensive in Thailand. Turkey banned YouTube (them again!) for insulting clips about its former leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
A distinction has to be made between punishing new forms of committing crimes and gagging a population. Insulting royalty and former leaders are punishable offences in Thailand and Turkey, respectively. However, freedom of speech is not. Last year, Morocco also blocked access to YouTube. At the time, Moroc Telecom insisted it was a technical glitch; one which curiously only affected one website. It is thought that clips of pro-independence demonstrations in Western Sahara prompted the action.
Herein lies the dilemma for liberal-minded folks. Technology must not be used to commit old-fashioned crimes in a new way. Allowing the world to view your culture can expose it to criticism.
Yahoo was criticised when it handed over information that the Chinese government used to prosecute dissidents including that which helped them identify, convict and imprison Shi Tao, a journalist who reported on human rights abuse in China. Yahoo claimed that it had to comply with Chinese law to operate in the country.
Google launched its China search site last year and was criticised in the US congress for complying with guidelines from the Chinese government which blocks references to Tiananmenn Square and ‘famous’ dissidents.
One man’s freedom of speech is another man’s subversion. The conundrum is where do we draw the line and who are we happy with drawing it?
The irony is, the glorious thing about the web is that information can be shared around the world. People can reach out and open the eyes of millions in other towns, cities or countries. Yet, those searching for knowledge are using the very same web as paedophiles ‘grooming’ young children and people promoting hatred and intolerance.
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...