THIS HOUSE WOULD CENSOR THE INTERNET

The Internet is growing at a fantastic rate and is a huge resource for mass
communication and information distribution. It can be used to spread
information anywhere in the world at a minimal cost[1] and, due to the
increase of computers or other electronic devices in the home.[2] It is one of
the most accessible forms of information in the world. However, not all the
information on the internet has a benevolent use. In the past few years,
there has been growing concern over information available on the Internet
which could be used to attack or damage society and vulnerable individuals;
for example, radical political or opinion websites, including social networking
sites, which can be used to attack and bully individuals[3] or to promote
group violence[4].
Currently, countries which censor such culturally controversial
internet sites include China[5], Vietnam[6], Pakistan[7], North Korea[8],
Syria[9], The United Arab Emirates[10] and Saudi Arabia[11]. These often
focus on seemingly low-risk sites such as social networking sites like
Facebook[12] and Weibo[13]. While the specific sites which are banned by
each country varies according to what these countries deem to be a threat,
the general case in the debate is to argue that the government should have
a right to censor whatever material they see fit. This makes the debate an
interesting discussion of the harms or benefits of censorship, and
government power over the freedom on information.
This debate will focus on the concept that a government should be
able to ban whatever internet material they feel is not in the public interest
to view, or which may actually pose a threat to that nation. For example, it
would be legitimate for the government in a strictly Muslim country such as
Iran to block overly Westernised websites such
as www.amazon.com and www.youtube.com, which indeed they already
do[14]as they believe that it threatens their culture. Countries would also be
allowed to block social networking sites if they believed that it was having a
negative impact on the population, for example inciting violence[15] or
losing work hours through procrastinating on Facebook[16]. Websites which
feature things such as child pornography are already banned within the
EU[17] for violating child rights and in countries across the Middle
East[18] as it is seen to mock Islamic beliefs[19], therefore while some
debates on increasing censorship would include it for the purposes of this
debate it is excluded.

Government:
Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from
harmful sites.
The government here may legitimately limit free speech.
Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating
effect on society.
As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject
to regulation just as other forms of media are.

1. Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from

harmful sites.
POINT
In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites
have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have
even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2]. Given that both
physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of
social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole.
They have become a medium through which others express prejudice,
including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5]. Similarly, if a
particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to
censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be
damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures
required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship,
the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites
to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must
ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.
[1] Moore, Victoria, The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and
cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of harmless fun, MailOnline, 4
August 2009,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fakeworld-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmlessfun.html on 16/09/11

[2] Good Morning America, Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teens Suicide,
ABC News, 19 November 2007,http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?
id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11
[3] BBC News, England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite
disorder, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englandmanchester-14551582 on 16/09/11.
[4] Good Morning America, Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teens Suicide,
ABC News, 19 November 2007,http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?
id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11
[5] Counihan, Bella, White power likes this racist Facebook groups, The
Age, 3 February 2010,http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-andculture/white-power-likes-t... on 16/09/11
[6] Brownejacobson, Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care, 18 June
2008,http://www.brownejacobson.com/press_office/press_releases/councils_o
we_v... 09/09/11

COUNTERPOINT
While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used
malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many
social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic
abuse[1] and racism[2], and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring
citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011.
[3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of
the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned
and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which
discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at
the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might
constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e.
attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be
construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in
fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are
perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief[4].

[1] BBC News, Teenagers poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign,
4 February 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12367525 on
16/09/11
[2] Unframing Migrants, meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM, facebook,
19 October 2010,http://www.facebook.com/events/168254109852708/ on
16/09/2011.
[3]BBC News, England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up. 9
August 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857 on
16/09/11.
[4] Marisol, Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in oppression of
believers, JihadWatch, 1 September
2011,http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/nigeria-boko-haram-jihadists-sayun-a-partner-in-oppression-of-believers.html on 09/09/11

2. The government here may legitimately limit free speech.

POINT
We already set boundaries on what constitutes free speech within our
society. For example, we often endorse a balancing act[1] an individual may
express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not
impede the protection of other human rights[2] other peoples right not to
be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another
especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or
free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of
this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which
perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall
outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these
kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small
number of cases.
[1] Hera.org, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Education
Association,http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408on 09/09/11
[2] Hera.org, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Education
Association,http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408on 09/09/11

COUNTERPOINT
Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it it ignores
it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial
speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the
flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide
it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these
websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and
their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply
closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways.
This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.

3. Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating

effect on society.
POINT
Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already
seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook.
Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction
as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which
rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire,
Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted
each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure
that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the
destruction of property[4], physical violence towards others[5], and even the
deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove that seemingly innocent
Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a
devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the
population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to
act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of
behaviour when such disruption is occurring.

[1] AsiaNews.it, Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam, 22 June

2010,http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Internet-censorship-tightening-inVietnam... 09/09/11
[2] BBC News, England Riots, 8 February
2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14452097 on 09/09/11
[3] BBC News, England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite
disorder, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englandmanchester-14551582 on 09/09/11
[4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, UK riots could cost
taxpayer 100m, guardian.co.uk, 9 August
2011,http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100million on 09/09/11.
[5] Allen, Emily, We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders
police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE), Mail
Online, 11 August 2011,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024203/UKRIOTS-2011-David-Came... on 09/09/11.
[6] Orr, James, Birmingham riots: three men killed protecting homes, The
Telegraph, 10 August
2011,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693095/Birminghamriots-th... on 09/09/11.
[7] Huffington Post, UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?, 10
August 2011,http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/10/uk-riots-cleanupcould-co_n_9... on 09/09/11.

COUNTERPOINT
Given the number of people who actually use Facebook[1] and other social
networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small[2]. These riots
cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather
than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to
occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile
phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not
prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to
communicate with friends[3] and share photos[4] innocently.

[1] BBC News, Facebook hits 500m user milestone, 21 July

2010,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10713199 09/09/11.
[2] BBC News, UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities, 10 August
2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14460554 on 09/09/11.
[3] Santos, Elena, The ultimate social network,
softonic,http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11.
[4] Santos, Elena, The ultimate social network,
softonic,http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11

4. As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject

to regulation just as other forms of media are.
POINT
Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that
could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to
censorship[1], and mediums such as television, film and video receive a
higher degree of regulation[2] because it is widely recognised that moving
pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and
photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying
information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the
information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere
on the internet[3], alongside the millions of uploads from internet users
themselves[4].
[1] Foerstel, Herbert N., Banned in the Media, Publishing
Central,http://publishingcentral.com/articles/20030215-85-f98b.html?si=1 on
09/09/11
[2] CityTVweb.com, Television censorship, 27 August
2007,http://www.citytvweb.com/television-censorship/ on 09/09/11.
[3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, Thousands of Newspapers
Listed by Country & Region,http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ on 09/09/11
[4] Boris, Cynthia, 17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Videos Once a
Day, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September

2011,http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/09/17-percent-of-photobucketusers-upload-video-once-a-day.html on 09/09/11

COUNTERPOINT
Any information from television or newspapers has already been regulated,
so it is not a problem that it may now appear somewhere on the internet. It is
exactly because the internet is a forum for free information and expression
that so many people engage with it; removing this is a dictatorial move
against ordinary citizens who seek information without bias and undue
censorship.

Opposition:

Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of

free speech.
The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the
government.
People often react poorly to being censored by their
governments.

1. Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of

free speech.
POINT
Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete
world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply
cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion
assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion

sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious
and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a
farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored.
Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits
of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by
banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited;
even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and
logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.
COUNTERPOINT
We already frown upon certain forms of speech[1] as we recognise that it is
important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the
expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will
denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be
acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance
or even support from the government when we take no stepsprevent this
kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to
ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.
[1] Tatchell, Peter, Hate speech v free speech, guardian.co.uk, 10 October
2007,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfree
speech on 09/09/11.

2. The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the

government.
POINT
Given that the Internet is used as an international[1] and public space[2], the
government has no right over the information which may be presented via
the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the
basis by which they can serve their own country how they will create or
maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will
govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international
and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the
information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the
government as dictatorial and a nanny state[3], demonstrating a lack of
respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or

recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the
individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.
[1] Babel, Towards communicating on the Internet in any
language,http://alis.isoc.org/index.en.html
[2] Papacharissi, Zizi, The virtual sphere, New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp 9-27, February 2002,http://nms.sagepub.com/content/4/1/9.shorton
09/09/11
[3] BBC. A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state. Published
04/02/2011. Accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine12360045 on 09/09/11.

COUNTERPOINT
The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a
detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that governments
responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens
within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern,
particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and
specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to recruit others to their
school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support
and followers[1]. Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who
are often very intelligent and persuasive[2], might lure others to them
without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs
real protection.
[1] Kiley, Sam, Terrorists May Recruit On Social Networks, SkyNews, 12 July
2011,http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16028962 on 09/09/11.
[2] Ali, Iftakhar, Terrorism The Global Menace, Universal Journal The
Association of Young Journalists and Writers,http://www.ayjw.org/articles.php?
id=944449on 09/09/11.

3. People often react poorly to being censored by their

governments.
POINT

In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information,

their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For
example, in China growing discontent with the governments constant
censorship has led to public outrage[1], and political satire which heavily
criticises the government[2]. Censorship can easily be used malevolently and
is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the
population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore
the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any
kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their
own choices.
[1] Bennett, Isabella, Media Censorship in China, Council on Foreign
Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorshipchina/p11515 on 09/09/11
[2] Bennett, Isabella, Media Censorship in China, Council on Foreign
Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorshipchina/p11515 on 09/09/11.

COUNTERPOINT
Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesnt like
raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that
sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the
long-term, best interest of its people whether or not it is a popular measure
at the time.