Freedom of information and human rights seems to be an expectation of most Americans. We have been taught that we have the right to information, our own opinion, ideas, and the right to speak freely about it. That is not to say that certain things are not available, but its not the norm for someone to come arrest me for trying to look up unavailable information. I have the right to Google pretty much anything I want and if the information or data has been blocked, then I will receive a nice little message that tells me its not available. In China on the other hand, you can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to five years in prison even though their constitution includes freedom of expression. I can understand why the government wants to censor what their citizens are exposed to due to the nature of their government, but how can everyone still sit by and watch it happen?
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. Internet censorship is common in countries such as China , Vietnam , North Korea , Cuba and Thailand . Citizens of these countries can be punished for trying to access unauthorized websites or finding ways to visit these sites or even sending emails with unapproved information. China has been in the spotlight most recently for its stringent censorship before the 2008 Olympics. Activists have been arrested and are being tried and sentenced to the maximum for breaking the law. Many governments censor what their citizens are privileged to in order to limit their knowledge of the outside world and to keep the outside world from knowing what goes on in their countries.
The censorship of information can be a good thing such as in Australia where they censor pornographic websites. It is argued that the “moral minority” are the only people who want Internet censorship. I can understand that but also, if you think about the actual standards of morals over the past 50 years, their has been a huge change in acceptability of things that were once considered socially unacceptable. Would’t censorship be considered positive in the case of child pornography?
I enjoy my freedom of voicing my opinion and having access to information to support my opinion. Access to information is key in the U.S. due to our want and need for expression of ideas. We are, after all considered “the land of opportunity.” If you censor the information that helps people build opportunities and cut off people’s access to information, how can people expect our country to flourish?
I believe in the right to information in order to gain knowledge. The accessibility of information is vital to the growth of a democracy, but what about other countries? How can countries watch as human rights are violated and still support a country for its unfair treatment of its people? The blocking of pornography or sites like that may be positive in a sense, but if you censor one thing how can you know what will be censored next? It may be only the beginning of a long list of things a government thinks you should not have access to. How much influence should governments have over what we know and are privileged to know?
Feel free to leave comments or thoughts you may have on the censorship of information or the human rights watch. I would be happy to hear what other people think of what is going on with the growth and access to the Internet and information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.news24.com/
http://www.blogs.usatoday.com/
http://www.theage.com.au/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDy8O94J4Po video on the Reporters Without Borders
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. Internet censorship is common in countries such as China , Vietnam , North Korea , Cuba and Thailand . Citizens of these countries can be punished for trying to access unauthorized websites or finding ways to visit these sites or even sending emails with unapproved information. China has been in the spotlight most recently for its stringent censorship before the 2008 Olympics. Activists have been arrested and are being tried and sentenced to the maximum for breaking the law. Many governments censor what their citizens are privileged to in order to limit their knowledge of the outside world and to keep the outside world from knowing what goes on in their countries.
The censorship of information can be a good thing such as in Australia where they censor pornographic websites. It is argued that the “moral minority” are the only people who want Internet censorship. I can understand that but also, if you think about the actual standards of morals over the past 50 years, their has been a huge change in acceptability of things that were once considered socially unacceptable. Would’t censorship be considered positive in the case of child pornography?
I enjoy my freedom of voicing my opinion and having access to information to support my opinion. Access to information is key in the U.S. due to our want and need for expression of ideas. We are, after all considered “the land of opportunity.” If you censor the information that helps people build opportunities and cut off people’s access to information, how can people expect our country to flourish?
I believe in the right to information in order to gain knowledge. The accessibility of information is vital to the growth of a democracy, but what about other countries? How can countries watch as human rights are violated and still support a country for its unfair treatment of its people? The blocking of pornography or sites like that may be positive in a sense, but if you censor one thing how can you know what will be censored next? It may be only the beginning of a long list of things a government thinks you should not have access to. How much influence should governments have over what we know and are privileged to know?
Feel free to leave comments or thoughts you may have on the censorship of information or the human rights watch. I would be happy to hear what other people think of what is going on with the growth and access to the Internet and information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.news24.com/
http://www.blogs.usatoday.com/
http://www.theage.com.au/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDy8O94J4Po video on the Reporters Without Borders
3 comments:
Lots of good points, and good overall coverage from Korea to Australia, but your posting is pretty wordy. Good links. But you don't attempt to answer your own question: How much control should government have? What is your opinion?
I'd agree with prof. flournoy - what do You think about how much control should governments have?
My take is that censorship is necessary in areas that affect morality or accepted norms of social behaviour e.g. where minors, or even adults can be exposed to "undesirable" elements.
What is considered undesirable can only be determined in the context of each country and culture, and would therefore have to be left to the government in place there.
However in areas that affect public interest, there should not be censorship i.e. information pertaining to government activities, news, scientific information etc.
Any takers?
Edit to my previous comment: by accepted norms of social behaviour, i guess i really just mean morality (in terms of acceptable levels of nudity, violence, anti-social behaviour)
Post a Comment