Censorship on the Web

The Internet offers instant access to information across national and cultural borders, but along with helpful information the Internet hosts a disturbing amount of unsavory material. Militias and hate groups use Web sites to recruit new members and spread their views. International terrorists use Web sites as recruiting tools and for boasting about suicide bombings. Criminals, anarchists and dissenters post guidebooks and tips on how to do all kinds of illegal activities, from making suitcase bombs to spreading viruses.

Some advocate cyber censorship to irresponsible Web sites, blogs and discussion groups. Cyber censorship typically means blocking access to Web sites, but it can also mean closing sites and removing them from host servers. Censorship advocates are opposed by free speech supporters. The controversy over censorship is not new. In most cases words are acceptable, whereas actions can be punishable. But in some cases, words are punishable, too.

A second censorship guideline hinges on local standards of morality. Local communities can apply their own standards to determine whether material is obscene.

However, local standard are difficult to sort out on the Internet where a Web surfer in Tennessee can easily access Web sites, bulletin boards and chart groups that originate from anywhere in the world.

The U. S. Supreme Court supports the concepts of cyberzones that limit net access to certain materials. It is possible to construct barriers in cyberspace and use them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more like the physical world and more amenable to zoning laws. As an example, AOL is trying to develop a family - friendly Internet portal by enforcing policies against offensive speech.

But in some countries cyber citizens have no choice but to use a government-controlled ISP. In many countries, free speech is not a basic right conferred to all citizens. Many dictatorial regimes want their citizens to receive news from the outside world only after government censor has screened it. Officials in more than 20 countries use sophisticated tools to block Web sites, filter e-mail, and censor discussion groups.

China has some of the most rigorous Internet censorship in the world. The “Great Firewall of China” as it is sometimes called, blocks Internet content by preventing IP addresses of objectionable sites from being routed through its gateways into China. In Iran, government censors monitor political and news Web sites. In Saudi Arabia if you tried to open “Rolling Stone” magazine’s Web site, you would find that access has been denied. The Saudi government claims it censors the Internet to preserve culture and heritage. That argument in many ways reflects the concept of cyberzones that conform to local standards of morality. Even free-speech activists seem to agree. They say: “We do think that information should be free, but we do need to find a balance for respect for sovereign states to preserve their own culture.”

Despite such cultural sensitivity, technology giants, such as Microsoft, Yahoo! and Cisco Systems have been criticized for providing foreign government with tools for blocking culturally objectionable sites.