The Rise of Censorship

As the Age of the Internet moves forward, connecting an ever-increasing number of people, devices, and cultures, certain basic human/civil rights issues are again rising to the fore, despite having been long since dead in most parts of the modern world. The problem? Censorship.

Freedom of information, freedom of speech, and the basic right to think or behave as an individual is being slowly eroded by the hands of both government and religion, most often in the name of ethics or protecting the innocent. While there are admittedly issues with an open network like the Internet, such as delivering pornography and far more nefarious media alongside valuable information and communication tools, this is not a valid reason to erect boundaries that essentially amount to state-sponsored censorship. This is occurring not just in China and Middle Eastern countries, like Pakistan or Iran, where this could be expected of such autocratic regimes, but also in South Africa, Australia, parts of Europe, and with nationless services like Facebook.

Most recently is the “Draw Muhammad Day” event, a visceral reaction against the very act of censorship, that sparked self-righteous outrage in some of the more strict Islamic communities throughout the world and caused Pakistan to block Facebook for a period of time. Standing as a prime example of censorship, it seems now entirely acceptable to neglect the peaceful and noninvasive freedoms of many people in order to protect the beliefs and image of a powerful few – at least to some.

Iran has blocked various Internet services, like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, on a recurring, but irregular, basis since the beginning of the election protests in the Summer of 2009, for very much the same reason: unwanted dissenting behavior from a loud party without, ultimately, any true political power. China stands similarly, but with much more vigor, as there are entire bureaucratic departments dedicated to the management of the national firewall, trolling blogs and other social sites to “enhance” the country’s image, and trying citizens for what they perceive as unlawful dissent and criticism of the political regime.

Australia, however, exists as a shining beacon of censorship in the Western World, having implemented as they will be implementing a national firewall in order to supposedly prevent the viewing of child pornography and other unwanted content deemed unacceptable by the whims of a twisted bureaucracy. Despite being immensely unpopular outside of the historically self-centered and persecutionary fundamentalist groups, the idea of a Great Firewall continues to exist in a free and democratic nation, in parallel to the actions of ISPs and a trial run of the censorship program itself.

Most worryingly, Facebook has taken to the disabling and censoring of user profiles that somehow offend others, regardless of their actual objective offensive nature, leading to the virtual persecution of Arab Atheists, critics of Islam, or those who are, for whatever reason, made enemies of groups mobilized against them. Does this sound like the Internet that facilitates, encourages, and thrives on freedom?

The worldwide network is already censored, to some degree, thanks to the violations of Net Neutrality by ISPs, but the behavior of certain companies and governments arguably far exceeds the ethical violations of AT&T or Comcast. Information truly cannot be managed, as it often simply wants to be free, and many need to quickly learn this fact, since attempting to prevent the discussion of certain topics online often leads to even greater attention outside their realm of influence – this is sometimes known as the Streisand Effect.

In terms of effectiveness, such attempts at censorship are merely reactionary and far from preventative, since they block, edit, or remove materials offensive to them only after being aware of their existence. How, in this manner, can the justification of rights violations include preventing the viewing of child pornography? The Internet is a highly sophisticated entity that’s continually mutating and evolving, which leaves virtually no point at which to enact unilateral censorship, especially for its elite users. True, certain large child pornographic websites may not be accessible from inside the borders of Australia, but there are alternatives to such distribution methods just as there are technological solutions to avoid being watched.

If Australia has freedom of speech and press as part of their fundamental national principles, why, then, is digital life treated any different? Criticism is absolutely essential to the health and continued existence of a functioning, modern nation – even when it’s offensive. There has, for at least the last decade, been the assumption that the arrival of the Internet has been a liberating, empowering force for both progress and good, but this cannot be true if the very nature and behavior of the network is molded to each country’s, or company’s, liking.

Facebook and Australia should be ashamed of themselves – it could be expected of corrupt, controlling, and coercive governments, but not of modern members of the Western World, let alone companies that work to expand the abilities of the individual.

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.