The monitoring and censoring of the various forms of media occurs world wide, from film/video classification and censorship, to music, the parental advisor stickers. But how-about the so-called “new media”, specifically the internet? This essay aims to examine the following issues:
• Who censors the Internet (identifying the various groups and laws governing the censorship of the net?• How the net should be censored?
“Because for instance, the Internet is an area of freedom entirely unconstrained by society, it holds up a mirror to those nasty human impulses that are normally constrained by the sanction of collective morality”. (I Hilton 1996).
As the internet develops, the need to monitor and restrict “those nasty human impulses” is beginning to be met by various countries in many ways.
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was passed on October 23rd 1998 in the United States of America. This act was created to prevent online sites from knowingly making available to minors material that is “harmful” to minors. Enforcement of this law subjects violators to fines of up to $50,000 per offence and/or prison terms of up to six months.
The material which COPA is focusing on preventing minors being exposed to, and has deemed “harmful to minors” is online material that is sexually explicit. COPA states that “Government and the private sector should undertake a major education campaign to promote public awareness of technologies and methods available to protect children online".
This act also states that, “the ISP industry should voluntarily undertake “best practices” to protect minors”.
Prior to COPA the U.S. Government had introduced the Communications Decency Act (C.D.A.). The CDA criminalised indecent content and knowing transmission, to minors over the internet, any message “that in context depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs”. The CDA also imposed $100,00 fines and prison terms for anyone posting obscene or indecent material on the internet. However, in 1996 the US Supreme Court declared the CDA an “Unconstitutional Infringement of Free Speech”.
In the USA, with the implications of COPA and Sexual Predator punishment pressure on ISPs to act as censors or enforce online content, these acts have made ISPs responsible for reporting customers to the correct law enforcement agencies when “they suspect them of engaging in illegal activity such as trading in child pornography”. (www.copacommission.org).
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), formed in 1996 on agreement between the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association), LINX (London Internet Exchange) and the Safety Net Foundation, is a voluntary mechanism for monitoring and tackling illegal and offensive content on the UK internet. The IWF works with ISPs, software providers, police, government, telcos and mobile operators. Its’ main aims are tackling “potentially illegal internet content” from websites, newsgroups and online groups, that :
• Contain images of child abuse,
• Contain adult material that potentially breeches the Obscene Publications Act in the UK,
• Contain criminally racist material in UK
The Internet Content Register (ICR) is a UK based regulatory body that aims to monitor internet content and ensure information is valid. It offers companies that register with the ICR benefits such as: improved credibility and more security for the internet consumer. The ICR also aims to prevent children from being exposed to “violent or sexual” material. The ICR has also developed an ICOP (Internet Code of Practice). These are practices that all who have registered with the ICR should agree to abide by when creating/publishing any online material.
With regards to censorship, the board of the ICR believe that it is not up to them to “tell the customer what should and should not be downloaded” then go on to state “what circumstances can ever make child pornography acceptable? And are those who embrace it the kind of customers ISPs should want to attract or you be expected to support”.
“The ICR represents a further shift towards acceptance that the net is evolving out of control and needs to be kept in check” – (Perks –1997 ).
“There are obviously some situations where sensitive material has to be restricted to those entitled to see it”. (D Amis 2000).
An attempt to restrict this sensitive material was made by the Australian Government.. In May 1999, the Australian parliament passed the “Broadcasting Services Amendment (on line services) Bill 1999. The aim of this bill was to get Isps to join an industry scheme that would develop procedures to conform to the Government’s requirements that ISPs take all possible action to prevent children from accessing unsuitable/adult material, and stop adults accessing material deem illegal by the Government. The Bill also requires ISPs to deal with “X-rated “ content as if it were “refused classification. (The Australian Broadcasting Services Amendment (online services) Bill 1999)
The ways in which the UK, US and Australia aim to censor online content via creation of laws and censorship bodies are very similar. To get a broader view of worldwide censorship, it is important to look at other countries.
In Canada the CRTC (Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission) issued a media release titled “CRTC won’t regulate the Internet”. In the document the the CRTC stated “ …. The new media on the internet are achieving the goals of the Broadcasting Act and are vibrant, highly competitive and successful without regulation”.
The Chinese Government has an altogether different approach to the previously mentioned countries. In 1996, China banned access to over 100 websites by the use of a filtering system,which prevents the delivery of offensive information. Some of the sites included western news outlets, anti-China dissident sites and sexually explicit sites.
In May 1996 it was reported that the Malaysian Prime Minister had given specific instructions that there will not be censorship on the internet.
Norway offers a unique approach to regulate the net because new media is not regulated by Norwegian law. Public information is issued through leaflets and brochures.
The Saudi Arabian Government filter and block access to the internet which is considered sensitive for political or religious reasons.
In Singapore the S.B.A. (Singapore Broadcasting Authority), has regulated internet content since July 1996.
The Internet Content Filtering Ordinance has been used in South Korea since July 2001. Some of the components of this ordinance rrequire;
• ISPs to block access to websites on a Government compiled list,
• That internet access facilities accessible to youth (Internet cafes, libraries, schools) install filtering software,
• The introduction of an internet content rating system.
In May 1988, “Act (1988:112) on responsibility for electronic bulletin boards” was introduced by Swedish parliament. The law requires ISPs who store information to remove material that is obviously illegal, that is:
Instigation of rebellion
• Racial agitation
• Child pornography
• Illegal description of violence
• Or when it is obvious that the user has infringed copyright law (www.efa.org.au)
“Conformity is to a large extent the glue that keeps a group or whole society together” (Wallace, 1999 : 61).
However when the bond keeping a particular group, or society, is deemed offensive by one of the many internet watchdogs or even another social group, it is often the case that the material will be removed. It is therefore important to examine the types of material which have previously caused offence, and where the line is drawn defining what is an acceptable standard.
“Standards are a political issue because they represent a form over technology”. (J Abate, 1999 : 147)
The following information is taken from a survey of UK ISPs, regarding whether they censor material. The results of this survey were consistent; all of the ISPs block access to certain newsgroups.
West Dorset Internet admit they offer a “censored feed, with approximately 100 news groups removed”. Hiway Communications state “We do not carry the accepted list of known illegal groups”. AOL uk “ban any newsgroup that is evidently a paedophilia newsgroup”. AOL insist that they “cannot disclose numbers”. Clarenet remove only “a very small number of newsgroups” and only when it is clear that their intended use is the propagation of images of child abuse. Ppotel have “always excluded a large number of newsgroups as being “irrelevant” (A Docherty, 2000 ).
Sometimes the level of content of offensive material online gets exaggerated within the media. One such exaggeration came from Time Magazine.
“There’s an awful lot of porn online. In an 18 month study, the team surveyed 917,410 sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, shot stories and film clips. Of those, the net groups where digitised images are stored, 83.5% of the pictures were pornographic”. Time Magazine summary of Study by Cairnegue Mellon : Psychology of Internet p 158.
In actual fact, considerably less than 1% of those 917,410 images were found in internet newsgroups. They were located within members pay sites. By its own admission Time later stated that there may have been flaws in the way in which this particular story was reported. They also offered that the story may be “contributing to a mood of popular hysteria, sparked by the Christian Coalition and other radical right wing groups that might lead to a crack down”.
Further examples of the type of material that gets censored or removed can be given by the worlds largest ISP. On December 11th 1998 America Online (AOL) closed most of its Irish Heritage Forum sites. In total 23 discussion groups. AOL closed these forums due to profanity and personal attacks, which are banned under its terms of service. Kate Sheridan of “The Irish People” claimed AOL’s reasons were “politically motivated intending to extinguish growing firestorm of pro-republican news and comment in the forum”. (December 19th 1998). On December 28th 1998, the Irish discussion groups were re-opened by AOL, however all previous postbags had been removed. An AOL manager, I Ravon, posted the site users instructions on their future behaviour. Users were urged to report vulgar posters so that action could be taken against them.
AOL has previously removed content, in 1998 the Suralikert site was removed because it contained materials allegedly offensive to Muslims. In 1997 a site containing writings of a convicted serial killer was removed after threat of AOL boycott by Wyoming Governor Jim Gereng. (Pawelek, 1999)
In the United Kingdom, the ICR chose to act against the website netadult.co.uk. From the website it was possible to access information and pictures featuring the late Princess of Wales, including post crash photographs and some fake pictures supposedly of the Princess inside the Mercedes during the rescue attempts.
A statement regarding the Netadult site issued by ICR read; “apart from being incredibly disrespectful and distasteful ICR observed that the site:
“Was not the rightful owner of the material posted and the site producers were in breech of copyright laws with respect to all images used on the site. “
Approaches were made to both the site operators and to the police. The site has been discontinued. Time taken from initial advice to site closure; 20 hours. (www.internet.org.uk)
“Problems arise of course, when common interest communities start being built around forums of behaviour or expression which are illegal in one country but not another …”
“ ……legal systems by and large are tied to a particular geographical area in just the way that the internet is not.” (A Newey, 1999 : 17 ).
An example of the problems caused by the lack of geographical limits which the internet has, can be illustrated by a lawsuit filed against the search engine Yahoo during the summer of 2000 by the Union of Jewish Students and the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism regarding the sale of nazi memorabilia on the Yahoo Auction sites.. In France and some other E.U. countries the sale of nazi memorabilia is illegal. In the US it is not. Yahoo spent many months trying to convince the French authorities it is technically impossible to prevent French users from viewing the items sold in private auctions. This was eventually settled out of court, in early 2001. Yahoo issued a statement that it would refuse items “associated with groups which promote or glorify hatred and violence”. (Whittaker, 2002)
In November 1995 the German Federal prosecutor’s office began investigations into Compuserve Inc, and ISP, and the content of Newsgroups and discussion forums. Because of these Newsgroups and discussion forums German users had access to material that is illegal in Germany ie child pornography, bestiality, neo nazi propaganda and sexual and political material. Compuserve suspended access world wide to newsgroups that might contain sexually explicit material. Compuserve would later issue a statement claiming that “individual users not ISPs are responsible for online content”.
In April 1996, the Head of Compuserve’s Central European Operations, Felix Somm was indicted by German authorities for “ complicity in the dissemination of child pornography, nazi symbols and violent computer games.” The implications of the indictment were that Somm was responsible for illegal content (in Germany) of Compuserve’s newsgroups. Somm’s case came to trial in the summer of 1998, in Munich. The prosecution was convinced that Somm had no way to regulate and monitor the online content of Compuserve’s newsgroups and an acquittal was recommended. Nevertheless the judge handed down a 2 year suspended sentence and a fine close to $57,000 on the 28th May. Following an appeal, the sentence and fine were reduced. (Moschovitis et al, 1999).
Adults assume their children’s’ response to interactive simulations impairs their faculties in the same way that television impaired their own. (D Rushkoffi, 1999).
For, the many bodies and laws that try to regulate and maintain the content, there are others who feel strongly against these bodies and their ideals. Some believe that censoring or banning material actually does more harm than good.
Evans claims that problems occur when banning “hate speech” because it can only be applied in a one-sided way. The “reality is that banning hate speech can only strengthen the ability of those in positions of power to silence those with whom they differ.” (Evans, December 200`)
Others argue against the actual bodies that censor material and the methods that they use in order to carry out censorship.
Alan Docherty illustrates what he deems “censorship hypocrisy” and “double standards” shown by ISPs
Extract from the IWF Annual reports:
“In the last four years (report written in 2001) 25,790 items hosted by UK ISPs were removed. It (the IWF) is a quick and effective form of censorship without either redress or accountability.”
Docherty then reviews the “stark contrast” between that report and one issued in January 2001 by the ISPA stating that “ISPs and Government Departments cannot act as judiciary in deciding the often very complex question whether material is legal.
Docherty also questions “how can we understand a situation where the UK internet industry’s trade body funds and supports the shutting down of websites and cancelling of user net postings, but at the same time claims its members have no authority to do so?” Docherty concludes that the IWF needs to be abolished by ISPs and ISPs need to begin “standing up for the rights of net users” and only removing material following a court order.
Evans puts forward a critique of the methods used by the IWF and ways in which he believes the IWF is stopping freedom of speech. He notes that while the number of items removed by the IWF (29,122, as of the 5th November 2002) shows the power of the IWF, when the number of items considered worthy of referral tot he police for possible court action is only 283. “This means that over 95% of the material removed from the net is unlikely to have resulted in successful prosecution through UK courts..”
Evans than examines the main focus of the IWF – Child Pornography. “The Iwf clearly puts the rights to free speech in second place, stating “the interests represented should include children’s interests as the highest priority. It has never been clear why democratic rights should play second fiddle to the interests of children.”
Arguments against censorship can usually be located within these two statements;
1. Protection of freedom of speech, that freedom of speech is necessary for the proper working of a democracy.
2. The discovery of truth requires a free market place of ideas. (Ellis 1998)
Ellis however offers critique of these two points and also relays other non-consequentialist arguments. The first argument Ellis claims “the Government should be responsive to all preferences, and it can hardly be so, if it denies some people the right to make their preferences known”. With regards to the second statement he states “nor does it depend upon the relationistic view that there is no such thing as truth other than what society accepted as true”. He believes that these arguments are consequential and they “hold that promoting speech will promote greater good”. One of the non-consequentialist arguments Ellis higlighted “that to deny the freedom to speak is also to deny the freedom to hear. Another consequentialist argument against censorship holds “that we each have a moral responsibility to others or perhaps just to the truth to express our views to others”.
Ellis then puts forward the question “when may the Government legitimately over-ride the right to freedom of speech”. Harm, blasphemy, profanity, vulgarity, indecency, obscenity, offence are the categories that he believes the Government should over-ride. (Ellis, 1998).
The internet has gained a reputation for being “impossible to censor and out of control”. (Docherty 2000).
It is this reputation of being impossible to censor that has led to the creation of such regulators as the IWF and ICR. David Capaitanchik and Michael Whine have suggested the following principals should be considered when constructing any policy that is designed to restrict, control or remove material on the internet. They are:
• It is important to respect the right of freedom of speech. This right is not unconditional, even in democratic societies, and would not extend, for example, to the commission or promotion of criminal acts, or sexual, racial or other forms of discrimination deemed contrary to the public good.
• It is desirable to avoid state imposed, statutory controls or censorship of speech itself and the media throughout which it is expressed. Controls should be aimed at what can be accessed on the internet, i.e. at the receiving end, since it is technically impossible to prevent material which is illegal or specifically designed to offend being put on the internet at source.
• The internet is used by far right and other extremist groups to disseminate their ideas with a view to influencing opinion, recruiting new members. While there is little evidence at present to show that this is having much effect, this does not mean that we should be indifferent towards the pressure on the internet of material which is inherently offensive.
• The internet should not be regarded differently from other means of publishing and disseminating speech and ideas. The same aims and controls which already apply to other means of publishing, whether electronic or printed should be applied to the internet.
Capaitanchik and Wine’s principals may be fine, but some believe that society is not ready for unfiltered access; Newey, illustrating that “absolutely unfettered freedom of expression might be possible in a society which lacks the economic, cultural and political inequalities of contemporary liberal democracies, but until we arrive at such a situation some temporary, targeted restraints on speech are necessary to actively encourage the expression of non-dominant viewpoints.”
This essay has shown the ways in which the internet is censored, by ISPs and regulatory bodies such as ICR and IWF. It has also demonstrated the differing ways in which individual governments try to censor the internet and illustrated the beliefs of those who oppose and agree with net censorship.
From the research, conclusions drawn indicate the importance of recognising the global nature of the net and the real need for universal agreement in the creation of any regulations designed for net censorship.
The Trouble With Computers
Landauer, Thomas K (1996, 1999), MIT Press
Being Digital
Negropente, N (1995), Hodder and Stoughton
The Psychology of the Internet
Wallace, Patricia (1999) Cambridge University Press
Media Ethics
David Archard, Martin Bell, Andrew Belsey, Noel Carroll, Ian Cram, Anthony Ellis, Bob Franklin, Gordon Girlam, Richard Keeble, Matthew Kieran, Brian McNair, Mary Midgley, Rod Pilling, Nigel Warbutton. Edited by Kieran, M (1998) Routledge
Liberating Cyberspace, Civil Liberties, Human Rights and the Internet
Edited by Liberty (1999) Pluto Press
Freedom of Expression censorship in private hands
Newey, A
The Governance of Cyberspace Racism on the Internet
Capaitchik M and Whine D
The Experience of Freedom
Jean-Luc, N (translated by McDonald B) (1998) Stratford University Press
History of the Internet
Moschovitis, Christos J P, Poole, H, Schuyler, T, Senft, Theresa M (1999) The Moschovitis Group
The Internet the Basics
Whittaker, J (2002) Routledge
Inventing the Internet
Abate, J (1999) MIT Press
Web Articles
Internet Censorship: law and policy around the world. (28 March 2002)
http.//www.efa.org.au/issues/censors/cens3.html
The Silent Net Censorship – Docherty A (9 March 2000)
http: //www.netfreedom.org
Dictatorship of the net censor – Evans, C (5 November 2002)
http: //www.netfreedon.org
New UK censorship badly launched – Perks, M (19 October 1997)
http: //www.netfreedom.org
America Online shuts down Irish forum – Pawelek, M (18 January 1999)
http: //www.netfreedom. org
Net Perspective: Censorship hypocrisy – Docherty, A (11 February 2001)
http: //www.netfreedom.org
Internet Watch Foundation
http: //www.iwf.org.uk/index/html
Banning hateful content makes things worse – Evans, C (11 December 2001)
http: //www.netfreedom.org
Internet Content Register
http: //www.internet.org.uk/waining.html
The Computer made me do it – Rushkoff, D (26 June 1999)
Guardianonline
C.O.P.A.
http: www . copacommission.org
Australian Net Censorship Bill – Hellman, K (31 may 1999)
http: //netfreedon.org