write a research paper on censorship and internet brainly

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges and Departments
• Email and phone search
• Give to Cambridge
• Museums and collections
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Postgraduate events
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement

Internet censorship: making the hidden visible

• Research home
• About research overview
• Animal research overview
• Overseeing animal research overview
• The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
• Animal welfare and ethics
• Report on the allegations and matters raised in the BUAV report
• What types of animal do we use? overview
• Guinea pigs
• Equine species
• Naked mole-rats
• Non-human primates (marmosets)
• Other birds
• Non-technical summaries
• Animal Welfare Policy
• Alternatives to animal use
• Further information
• Funding Agency Committee Members
• Research integrity
• Horizons magazine
• Strategic Initiatives & Networks
• Nobel Prize
• Interdisciplinary Research Centres
• Open access
• Energy sector partnerships
• Podcasts overview
• S2 ep1: What is the future?
• S2 ep2: What did the future look like in the past?
• S2 ep3: What is the future of wellbeing?
• S2 ep4 What would a more just future look like?
• Research impact

Despite being founded on ideals of freedom and openness, censorship on the internet is rampant, with more than 60 countries engaging in some form of state-sponsored censorship. A research project at the University of Cambridge is aiming to uncover the scale of this censorship, and to understand how it affects users and publishers of information

Censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale Sheharbano Khattak

For all the controversy it caused, Fitna is not a great film. The 17-minute short, by the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, was a way for him to express his opinion that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Understandably, the rest of the world did not see things the same way. In advance of its release in 2008, the film received widespread condemnation, especially within the Muslim community.

When a trailer for Fitna was released on YouTube, authorities in Pakistan demanded that it be removed from the site. YouTube offered to block the video in Pakistan, but would not agree to remove it entirely. When YouTube relayed this decision back to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), the decision was made to block YouTube.

Although Pakistan has been intermittently blocking content since 2006, a more persistent blocking policy was implemented in 2011, when porn content was censored in response to a media report that highlighted Pakistan as the top country in terms of searches for porn. Then, in 2012, YouTube was blocked for three years when a video, deemed blasphemous, appeared on the website. Only in January this year was the ban lifted, when Google, which owns YouTube, launched a Pakistan-specific version, and introduced a process by which governments can request the blocking of access to offending material.

All of this raises the thorny issue of censorship. Those censoring might raise objections to material on the basis of offensiveness or incitement to violence (more than a dozen people died in Pakistan following widespread protests over the video uploaded to YouTube in 2012). But when users aren’t able to access a particular site, they often don’t know whether it’s because the site is down, or if some force is preventing them from accessing it. How can users know what is being censored and why?

“The goal of a censor is to disrupt the flow of information,” says Sheharbano Khattak, a PhD student in Cambridge’s Computer Laboratory, who studies internet censorship and its effects. “internet censorship threatens free and open access to information. There’s no code of conduct when it comes to censorship: those doing the censoring – usually governments – aren’t in the habit of revealing what they’re blocking access to.” The goal of her research is to make the hidden visible.

She explains that we haven’t got a clear understanding of the consequences of censorship: how it affects different stakeholders, the steps those stakeholders take in response to censorship, how effective an act of censorship is, and what kind of collateral damage it causes.

Because censorship operates in an inherently adversarial environment, gathering relevant datasets is difficult. Much of the key information, such as what was censored and how, is missing. In her research, Khattak has developed methodologies that enable her to monitor censorship by characterising what normal data looks like and flagging anomalies within the data that are indicative of censorship.

She designs experiments to measure various aspects of censorship, to detect censorship in actively and passively collected data, and to measure how censorship affects various players.

The primary reasons for government-mandated censorship are political, religious or cultural. A censor might take a range of steps to stop the publication of information, to prevent access to that information by disrupting the link between the user and the publisher, or to directly prevent users from accessing that information. But the key point is to stop that information from being disseminated.

Internet censorship takes two main forms: user-side and publisher-side. In user-side censorship, the censor disrupts the link between the user and the publisher. The interruption can be made at various points in the process between a user typing an address into their browser and being served a site on their screen. Users may see a variety of different error messages, depending on what the censor wants them to know. 

“The thing is, even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where the government tells people that certain content is censored, how can we be sure of everything they’re stopping their citizens from being able to access?” asks Khattak. “When a government has the power to block access to large parts of the internet, how can we be sure that they’re not blocking more than they’re letting on?”

What Khattak does is characterise the demand for blocked content and try to work out where it goes. In the case of the blocking of YouTube in 2012 in Pakistan, a lot of the demand went to rival video sites like Daily Motion. But in the case of pornographic material, which is also heavily censored in Pakistan, the government censors didn’t have a comprehensive list of sites that were blacklisted, so plenty of pornographic content slipped through the censors’ nets. 

Despite any government’s best efforts, there will always be individuals and publishers who can get around censors, and access or publish blocked content through the use of censorship resistance systems. A desirable property, of any censorship resistance system is to ensure that users are not traceable, but usually users have to combine them with anonymity services such as Tor.

“It’s like an arms race, because the technology which is used to retrieve and disseminate information is constantly evolving,” says Khattak. “We now have social media sites which have loads of user-generated content, so it’s very difficult for a censor to retain control of this information because there’s so much of it. And because this content is hosted by sites like Google or Twitter that integrate a plethora of services, wholesale blocking of these websites is not an option most censors might be willing to consider.”

In addition to traditional censorship, Khattak also highlights a new kind of censorship – publisher-side censorship – where websites refuse to offer services to a certain class of users. Specifically, she looks at the differential treatments of Tor users by some parts of the web. The issue with services like Tor is that visitors to a website are anonymised, so the owner of the website doesn’t know where their visitors are coming from. There is increasing use of publisher-side censorship from site owners who want to block users of Tor or other anonymising systems.

“Censorship is not a new thing,” says Khattak. “Those in power have used censorship to suppress speech or writings deemed objectionable for as long as human discourse has existed. However, censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale, while possibly remaining discrete so that users are not even aware that they are being subjected to censored information.”

Professor Jon Crowcroft, who Khattak works with, agrees: “It’s often said that, online, we live in an echo chamber, where we hear only things we agree with. This is a side of the filter bubble that has its flaws, but is our own choosing. The darker side is when someone else gets to determine what we see, despite our interests. This is why internet censorship is so concerning.”

“While the cat and mouse game between the censors and their opponents will probably always exist,” says Khattak. “I hope that studies such as mine will illuminate and bring more transparency to this opaque and complex subject, and inform policy around the legality and ethics of such practices.”

Read this next

Emissions and evasions

Lights could be the future of the internet and data transmission

The Misinformation Susceptibility Test

Rewarding accuracy instead of partisan pandering reduces political divisions over the truth

Barbed wire

Credit: Hernán Piñera

Search research

Sign up to receive our weekly research email.

Our selection of the week's biggest Cambridge research news sent directly to your inbox. Enter your email address, confirm you're happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive a weekly Cambridge research news summary by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our weekly research news email. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

• digital media
• social media
• Digital society
• Sheharbano Khattak
• Jon Crowcroft
• Computer Laboratory
• School of Technology

Connect with us

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility statement
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Censorship of the Internet: The Job of Parents, Not Government

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Article details.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Internet censorship

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Censorship Follow Following
• Singapore Politics Follow Following
• Comparative Communication Law Studies Follow Following
• Media & Communication Follow Following
• Internet Law Follow Following
• Conflict of Laws Follow Following
• Internet Studies Follow Following
• State Theory Follow Following
• Functional Medicine Follow Following
• Physicians Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Government

Censorship Of The Internet Research Paper Examples

Type of paper: Research Paper

Topic: Government , Politics , Censorship , Internet , Children , Information , Family , Middle East

Words: 2500

Published: 12/23/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

The internet is a wonderful source of information and means of communication. Never again in the history of mankind has global communication being so easy yet so beneficial. For instance, medical professionals can discuss the latest operating techniques with their colleagues in distant places. Students can access millions of books on the internet while shoppers can buy exotic goods over the same platform without leaving the comfort of their couches at home. This is the beautiful face of the internet. The ugly side of internet is rife with people who use this wonderful innovation to conduct illegal activities. These range from distribution of materials that are objectionable to minors and the general public to cyber crime which manifests itself in various forms such as money laundering and hackings. The simplicity and access of using the internet is increasing day to day exposing millions of children to entirely all the content in the internet. The question begs, should the internet be censored? This is a controversial question because censorship bears on morality. Some people argue that censorship is against the provisions of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech while others opine that it is immoral to let children view obscene and possibly dangerous content on the internet. This essay explores how censorship can work in some cases while in others it can be detrimental to societal growth.

Internet censorship

Internet censorship is the suppression or control of publishing of, or the access to information available on the internet (Chawick, 2009). Internet censorship takes the form of site blocking or content filtering. The practice may be carried out by governments or private organizations on their own initiative or on behalf of the government or regulators. Primarily, internet censoring or the regulation of cyberspace is defined by state-controlled internet filtering. Individuals and private entities may engage in self-sponsorship for various reasons. Some of the reasons for self-censorship are religious beliefs, moral standings, business reasons, conformance to societal norms or even intimidation and fear of legal consequences (Faris & Villeneuve, 2011).

Internet censoring takes various forms. The earliest form was IP-(Internet protocol) address in china in late 1990s. In early 2000, China intensified its censoring technologies by implementing two advanced technologies. One was hijacking the DNSs (Domain Name System) while the other was dynamic filtering of internet data flow. These systems were hacked as people developed anti-blocking software. Today most organizations or governments that censor the internet use GFW (Great FireWall) technologies. Shapiro (2000) advises that it is important for organizations or governments to conduct comprehensive tests before launching them because they can get tricked by hacker and anti-censorship campaigners to block themselves or unintended sites.

The first and almost universally acclaimed basis of practicing internet censorship is exposure of children to objectionable content. These include exposure to pornography and their exposure to sexual exploitation. Objectionable content refers to access to gambling sites, sites that include hate speech (Nazi ideologies), political satire, criminal activities, violence, and illegal drug us (Bush et al. 2009). Other includes sites that contain defamatory, blasphemous, libelous or even slanderous contents. Most governments have illegalized the exposure of children to some or all of these sites. The commonest age limit to the access of these sites in most countries is 18 years. Conviction with a crime touching on children and the content on the internet ranges from fines to varying jail terms.

Some controversy still reigns over the legislations to regulate exposure of children to indecent acts. In US the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which was signed into law in 1995 was later nullified by the courts. The Act outlawed deliberate transmission of indecency acts to any person under the age of 18. According to Shapiro (2000) one of the reasons cited by the US Supreme Court while dismissing the act was that technology capable of screening kids did not exist. Lessig (1998) counters this argument by stating that children are less likely to afford materials fit for censorship and cannot dress up like adults in order t disguise themselves. The truth however is that children still find easy access to materials they are not supposed to see at will. Innovations requiring people to provide credit card numbers to access certain cites acts to deter minors since few of them hold bank accounts. Although this poses the danger of money laundering and cyber theft, it achieves the censorship of sites for child protection to a significant extent.

Private organizations censor by filtering access to their sites to protect themselves from malwares or to guard their reputation in case hackers use their sites to commit crimes such as sexual harassment. Internet censoring based on these grounds is also widely supported especially if the sites exist for the common good of the society. The censorship of access to information in the sites of international financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other organizational sites such as the European Union can gain considerable societal support (Shavitt & Zilberman, 2011). Moreover, these organizations have the ability to hire and maintain people knowledgeable on information technology. This gives them an edge to block access to their databases for instance.

Censorship can also work if it targets at promoting the security of the society. If secrets about government and state security operations are revealed to the general public, the security of the people may be compromised. Bush et al (2009) assert that it is for this reason that only a small portion of the information in websites of security agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Internet filtering to control activities of insurgents, extremist groups and terrorists often enjoys widespread public support (Chadwick, 2009). Examples of such censorships include blocking of sites used by the Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Wikileaks as well as 4chan which is associated with the group Anonymous.

Censorship can also work if it targets sites that share or violate copyrights and other intellectual property rights (Cowie et al 2003). The United States and Europe are at the frontline in the protection of intellectual property rights and internet censoring is one way they achieve this. One of the motivations for doing this is the protection of existing economic interests like low cost telephone services over Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Interference with these services can lead to reduced customer base levels for telecommunication companies. Since most governments sponsor and control most of these organizations which enjoy monopoly it becomes necessary to exercise some form of censorship (Faris & Villeneuve, 2011). Examples of censorships on these grounds include pee-to-peer (P2P) and related sites such as the pirate bay and skype.

The censoring of websites that have overwhelming public support is bound to meet substantial resistance, mass protests or even ultimate failure (Cowie et al, 2003). These include censoring search engine sites such as Google and bing. The Chinese and Cuban governments tried this drawing widespread public protests and international condemnation. Others include censorships on web hosting sites such as hostgator, bluehost and hostmonstor. Other censorships are also applied on media sharing sites such as YouTube and flickr, social networks such as facebook and MySpace, blog hosting sites such as BlogSpot, Wikipedia among other websites experiencing massive traffic and where people can share information.

It is important to highlight the danger of censoring social networking sites for whatever the reasons governments or organizations may have. Facebook currently has about 900 million registered users with more than 500 million active users! If facebook was a country it would be the world’s 3rd most populous country after China and India! The site has been blocked in China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. The site was censored for containing anti-Islamic and religious material that is biased and anti-Islam (Fonseca, 2007). However the events of the Arab uprising seem to defy these grounds for censoring the site in these countries. Millions of Muslims took to social networking sites specifically facebook to vent their anger and to press for their leaders to relinquish power. This they did with satisfactory outcomes in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen where they managed to out their leaders and agitate for a change in leadership and increased democracy.

The most controversial reason for censoring the internet is for political reasons. Governments censor the internet because they do not have free and fair elections or where rulers are trying to hold onto power in spite of being widely unpopular. The government blocks sites that criticize, rebuke it is policies or contradict what it has told the people. In some cases, the government can censor sites that bear religious information which people may use to rebel or topple them. In most cases the government succeeds to censor the internet for some time. The emergence of charismatic leaders in those societies, international pressure and advancements in technology and education usually results in such oppressive governments lessening their censorship over the internet (Shapiro, 2009). This results in more people getting information and demanding their rights of speech and expression.

The Arab Uprising in the spring of 2011 which started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, Yemen and Libya is a classic example of how the government attempt to censor the internet for political reasons can spectacularly fail. In all four countries, the leaders were ousted. Social networking sites like facebook and twitter take substantial credit for fuelling uprisings in the Arab world. To date, the uprising has spread to more than 14 other Arab countries such as Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, and Syria among others.

While some countries practice partial censorship others take it further and limit the access to information such as news while some governments suppress the discussions among their citizenry especially through Social Networking sites. Moreover, governments can initiate internet censorship in anticipation of events likely to draw the interests of the masses such as elections, riots and protests (Lessig, 1998). The best example of internet censorship on this basis is the events of the Arab uprising. Governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya attempted to curtail discussions among their populace by censoring social networking sites notably Facebook and Twitter.

There are several socio-economical implications of censoring the internet. Building and maintaining censorship systems is expensive. Thousands of websites are launched every day and it therefore becomes hard to monitor and censor the content in these sites. This makes the censorship process hard and compels governments or organizations to invest heavily in developing softwares to block the sites or filter the content displayed in those sites.

Censorship softwares achieve their purpose by hiding where a user is visiting, hiding where the content is hosted or hiding who the user is (Chadwick, 2009). The systems deployed for censorship purposes are themselves subject to abuse. They can for instance be hacked to block the sites that are not intended to or get used to get to the databases of the sensitive information which a government or organization is trying to censor. In some cases of censorship programmers develop softwares that block out sites that contain some words. For instance, the mention of the word “sex” or “breast” blocks out all sites containing the words. This can limit research to sites providing botanical or biological information. The censoring of these sites can for instance block information about breast cancer or sex education. This has the potential to achieve the opposite of what it was designed to protect in the first place.

The innovation of the internet tremendously improved communication and the sharing of information. While some people put the internet to good use such as research and to ease their lives by for instance shopping from home, others use the platform to commit crimes. The question of censoring the internet bears on morality and is therefore controversial. Internet censoring takes the form of blocking certain websites or filtering the content accessible through certain websites. Governments as well as private entities engage censorship based on moral standings, business among other reasons. There are three primary reasons as to why censorship occurs. Firstly is for political reasons where oppressive and unpopular governments want to remain in power, interference with elections, protests among others. Secondly censorship occurs for security reasons where the governments censor websites used to spread terror or incite violence by extremist or terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Lastly censorship can be fueled by moral or religious reasons. In this case the exposure of sexual or mentally torturous content to children is censored. Moreover, the government can censor the internet when some sites share copyrights and other intellectual property rights. In this case the government aims at guarding economic interests of individuals as well as those of the country. Cases where censorship occurs to protect children from indecent exposures have gained massive public support. Internet censorship for security purposes is still a controversial issue. Some governments especially those facing opposition from their citizenry, outlaw access to some websites claiming they are run by groups that pose security threats to the state. On the contrary they could be targeting at limiting their peoples’ freedom of speech and expression through certain groups such as the Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood for fear of being toppled. The case of internet censorship for political purposes gone awry is best illustrated by the spring 2011 Arab uprising. The uprisings, fueled through popular social networking sites; facebook and twitter saw the ousting of leaders in four Arab countries while 14 others experienced protests from their populace. These among other reasons elaborate why censorship of the internet can work in some cases while in others it can lead to the detriment of the very society it aims at protecting.

Bush, R., Maennel, O., Roughan, M. & Uhlig, S. 2009. Internet optometry: assessing the broken glasses in Internet reachability. In conference on Internet censorship.

Chadwick, A. 2009. Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 332

Cowie, J., Ogielski, A., Premore, B., Smith, E. and Underwood, T. 2003. Impact of the 2003 blackouts on Internet communications. Faris R. & Villeneuve, N. 2011. Measuring Global Internet Filtering. The Scope and depth of internet filtering. Retrieved 6 June 2012 from: http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_02_Ch01_005-028.pdf Fonseca, P. 2007. Cerf sees government control of Internet failing| Reuters. Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/14/us-internet-cerf- idUSN1420689320071114?sp=true Lessig, L. 1998. The Laws of Cyberspace. Proceedings of the Taiwan Net ‘98 Conference, Taipei. Retrieved 6 June 2012 from: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/laws_cyberspace.Pdf Shapiro, A. L. 2000.The control revolution : how the Internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York: Public Affairs, NY.

Shavitt, Y. & Zilberman, N. 2011. A study of geolocation databases. Journal on Selected Areas of Communications, abs/1005.5674, 2011.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1771

This paper is created by writer with

ID 280429910

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Science literature reviews, traveler argumentative essays, ferry argumentative essays, gait argumentative essays, overheard argumentative essays, drill argumentative essays, solicitation argumentative essays, embarrassment argumentative essays, displacement argumentative essays, photographer argumentative essays, graft argumentative essays, example of american government essay 2, reducing drug induced deaths article review sample, example of essay on the natural rate of unemployment rise, finance case study examples, good example of essay on leadership characteristics of nelson mandela, good essay on what is meant by the ethics of care, free code cloning is harmful for maintainability essay sample, christian worldview essay sample, foucault and criticism essay sample, new tax conformity rule article review samples, good essay on how nelson changed my hopeless life to an inspirational teacher in waiting, sample literature review on plato and aristotle art and rhetoric, effective presentation research paper samples, sample essay on how does music influence politics, dubai expo 2020 research paper samples, example of essay on this is what it means to say phoenix arizona, my last duchess as a feminist poem essay sample, good example of corporate executive essay, sample research paper on grief and nursing personnel, business plan on new hair care products, good essay on china, good example of blog writing creative writing, free social perception essay example, colomb essays, driller essays, cervarix essays, elliptic essays, fiber optic essays, amsa essays, ellis essays, amara essays, fasciae essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government Research Paper

Introduction, internet censorship, reasons for censorship, impact on the society, error analyses of filters, error analysis of filters for the distinct data set, works cited.

Internet can be defined as computer networks interconnection using a standard protocol to provide information to the entire world irrespective of where one is at any time (Garcia 32). The networks compose of public computers, learning institutions computers, business enterprises computers and private organization computers for local and global scope.

Earlier the internet was being referred to as the information super highway, its’ main aim of was to avail limitless information to everyone who needs it as fast as possible. Internet censorship refers to the act of controlling information access through the internet. Main motives of internet censorship vary from one website to another (“Research profiles.” 1).

Main reasons are children protection from harmful and explicit material, enabling grown up avoid contents that may compromise their community and personal standards, imposition of a moral framework in adult communication through the internet, and blocking of information material that is illegal to possess according to the government of a particular country under consideration.

The government uses various techniques to censor internet depending on the content they want to restrict. It does so through the use of program software called web filters or censor ware.

Main techniques for internet censorship include, IP blocking technique, this target website hosted by a common server. The entire websites hosted by that particular IP address are blocked (“Research profiles” 1).Whenever one tries to access them he/she is denied the access rights. Filtering domain name server (DNS) method, in this method the domain name is not resolved hence one is unable to access the site. This method uses software that restrict resolving of the domain name, as a result the target website is unavailable.

Packet filtering method, this technique uses keywords in filtering the content to be accessed, if the keyword is detected the site content is blocked. Another method is through the use of the uniform resource locator (URL), it uses keywords to block censored site from access. When one try to access a website the uniform resource locator is checked if it consists of the restricting keyword, if the keyword is found in the URL the site become unavailable.

Different government censors the internet due to different reasons, some may be reasonable and varied, while others are misuse of the power by the government. This has created a controversial situation of whether the government should carry out internet censorship or not (Kenny 1).

Different people have different views depending on the perspective one look the situation from, each any everyone has reason and evidence to support his/her theory. The positive aspects of internet censorship by the government around the world are immense.

World internet censorship ratings

• Blue – No censorship;
• Yellow – Some censorship;
• Red – Country under surveillance from Reporters without Borders;
• Grey – Internet black holes (most heavily censored nations).

The rule makers and enforcers should work hand in hand. Their Failure to cooperate leads the rule amounting to nothing. The social contract theory was developed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes; it argues that without rules and a systematic way of enforcing them the efforts amount to nothing. It uses the concept of cooperation between involved parties, they mutually resolve to follow laid down guidelines.

The guidelines are the rules set to benefit the people socially. All agree there should be rules laid down and the government should ensure they are enforced to all irrespective of one position. This theory was develop due to no man has authority over others naturally, hence there was need to establish contracts based on covenants. For censorship to be effective the law enforces and the designers should be one body (Eid 1).

Currently there are many unethical action been carried out, since the enforcers have absconded their duties. Regulations that govern the internet ethic are no longer being observed while the law enforces are enforcing new rules at will without consulting. Recently the government of Afghanistan censored interactive sites without even consulting. This shows there is a link between the enforcers and the law makers.

The rules are desirable if the effect s of their consequences is positive. If the consequences are negative then the rule is undesirable. The theory of rule utilitarianism was developed as a result of weaknesses in the act utilitarianism theory.

The morals theory argues that an action is morally right, if the consequences of an action results to an increase in the level of happiness. The theory uses the rules when explaining the moral values of an individual contrary to the act utilitarianism which uses the principle of utility (“Introduction to Content Filtering” 7).

It tries to exploit the fact that the rules are universally adoptable, hence result to immense happiness. Rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are similar in that they use the rule to base their argument. The difference between the two is that rule utilitarian emphasis on the action consequences while the Kantianism emphasizes on the action motive. It encourages universal adoption of an action that will increase the pleasure of the affected subjects.

In the year 2003 August, a worm by the name of blaster infected computer system using windows operating system .The worm exploited a security loophole in the windows operating system. It resulted to excess network traffic and also disabled some of the networks. The infection resulted to computer rebooting itself continually. Another worm named Nachi was developed to exploit the same loophole, but did not infect those immune to the blaster worm.

On contrary Nachi worm accessed the computer in the network to destroy blaster worm copies and also to download patches of windows to fix the loophole problem. According to the computer ethics introduction of harmful malware in a network is unethical and prohibited. According to the rule utilitarian it was morally correct since the consequences of the action increased pleasure to the affected subject.

The consequences of an action do not matter. What matters are the actions themselves. The act utilitarianism theory was developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

This contradicted the earlier theory of Kantianism. It based its’ argument on the fact that an action is termed to be good if the result benefit a person and undesirable if the action harm someone. The theory was founded on the principle of utility, where the action is gauged to be right or wrong depending on the effect on the level of happiness on the concerned party.

This theory measures the morality by determining the rise or fall of happiness on the concerned party. Attitude behind an action is not relevant in this argument, what is of more concern is the consequences of the actions. Being in this context is used to refer to anything that may experiences happiness and sadness. From the definition the being not only refers to the humans but also other mammals. It is hard to measure utility thus several attribute have been selected to weigh the effect of an action on the pain and pleasure (Carter 1).

Intensity measures the experience extent, certainty measures the likelihood, and duration measures the experience length, extent measures the number of being affected, purity measures the concentration of pain or pleasure, and fecundity measures the ability replicate the experience.

Freedom without limit is always abused; most internet users do not observe the internet rules set aside to govern access of information. Almost all government censors sensitive government information or the information is not availed to the internet users.

The explicit material in the internet should be restricted to avoid underage from accessing them. Most of the Muslim dominant countries pornographic materials have been completely censored. This ensures the young ones are protected from obscene materials. The action of the government is essential to maintain a morally upright generation in censoring some materials. Due to the complex internet network the government cannot leave the censoring action to parents or private companies, it has to undertake the action itself.

The will motivating an action should be the basis of judging an action whether morally right or wrong. An action may not be moral but the motive was moral.

The Kantianism` theory was developed by a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. His argument was, people action and deeds should be based on moral laws which are universally acceptable. Citing the bible examples to support his theory, he believed for any supreme moral law to hold it must be based upon some reasoning. Someone who is a Kantian should be able to state something whether it is good or bad and qualify it using specific and varied reasoning. It entails more than arguing whether something is morally right or wrong.

The main reasoning was something may be morally right, yet it can be used wrongly to harm others or cause conflict. In this world there are barely good things without need to qualify them to be good. Only good will can be termed to be good, since there is no need to qualify it to be good. An action cannot be termed to be good simply due to the beneficial results; something good is good irrespective of the outcome from the action.

What we are meant to do is more important than what we do. We should act out of morals instilled in use rather than what we feel we should do, our moral should be the driving force upon our actions. The oppressive regime use this theory to suppress it citizen and deprive them information access. They censor interactive sites to intimidate those opposing their agenda. Late 2009 China censored interactive site especially in Tibet area. This was meant to curb growing defiance against the government

It is hard to say that the consequences of an action do not matter; what’s matter is the action itself. People are more concerned in the results not the way the results have been achieved. Kantianism theory advocate that the motive is what’s matters not he actual result of the actions. If you have a granary infested with rats, there are different ways to remedy the situation.

If you burn down the whole granary it is an option but at what cost. As much as the motive of an action is good the consequence are dire. As much as the government may have good motives and intention in censoring the internet, caution should be taken to ensure the consequences do not outweigh the gains.

The Kantianism theory should not be employed much in censoring as it may result to undesirable dire consequences. January this year the Iran government censored all interactive site, in a mission to curb government critics who were using them to sell their ideas. In addition they also banned women right websites; this caused more harm than good. It also denied the woman their rights to voice out their view; such school of thought belongs to the Stone Age where women were considered inferior.

Government Internet censorship is not meant to suppress the society of information access, although it may result not unanticipated negative result. Every government actions to censor internet access are meant for the better of its citizen. But there are isolated cases, where the government censors internet access using unvaried bases.

This may result the country citizen being left behind in the fast growing global village. The reason for censoring internet should be clearly defined and measures put in place to protect the law from being abused. The law should also clearly define the method and modes to be used in censoring to avoid safe site from being blocked due to criterion used to block.

From the theories discussed above, it is clear from the different approaches the main objective of all is the effect of censoring to the people. They all agree if censoring result to positive effect then it is worthy but if it is harmful then it is harmful to the same people it ought to be protecting.

Irrespective of the reasons behind the censoring of the internet the result should be positive, it should not affect the people’s majority negatively. Whether it uses the rules, consequences of the action or the will motivating the action, the moral effect should be upheld at all times. Internet should be used for moral upright or justifiable action at all time. The internet ethos should be upheld and observed by all internet users indiscriminately of their position.

Complete censoring of the internet is contrary to the objective of having it and unhealthy to the people. The main aim of the internet is information sharing among the users and all information about any subject across the world should be accessible from anywhere in the world (Edelman 2).

Censoring result to discriminated information sharing and result to the internet falling short of its main objective. This hurt many sector in the world from business to entertainment. Although internet censoring is essential, it should be done up to a certain level where it cause more good than harm to the people.

Carter, Wendy. “How to write a thesis statement.” 2003. Web.

Edelman, Benjamin. “ Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia. ” 2010. Web.

Eid, Gamal. “The Internet in the Arab World A Space for Repression?” Reports and Press Releases. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. 2004. Web.

Garcia_Murillo, M. “Assessing the impact of Internet Telephony on the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.” 2010. Web.

Introduction to Content Filtering. “What is this service?” 2010. Web.

Kenny, Aaron. “Inside Internet Filtering.” 2009. Web.

Kuwait. “ Research profiles. ” 2010. Web.

Saudi Arabia. “ Research Profiles. ” 2010. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 8). Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/

"Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." IvyPanda , 8 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government'. 8 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

1. IvyPanda . "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

• Censoring Free Speech: Pros and Cons
• Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Egoism
• Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering
• The information Divide (NBN)
• What is the negative and positive side for the national broadband network?
• Standardized Configurations across the Network
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Dating Essay
• Information Technology Acts