Web Censorship on the Increase

mid-devonian writes "Close on the heels of the temporary blocking of YouTube by a Turkish judge, a group of academics has published research showing that Web censorship is on the increase worldwide. As many as two dozen countries are blocking content using a variety of techniques. Distressingly, the most censor-heavy countries (which includes China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Burma and Uzbekistan) seem to be passing on their technologically sophisticated techniques to other areas of the world. 'New censorship techniques include the periodic barring of complete applications, such as China's block on Wikipedia or Pakistan's ban on Google's blogging service, and the use of more advanced technologies such as 'keyword filtering', which is used to track down material by identifying sensitive words.'"

uh oh

[wizardforce]

let us hope this doesn't spread- Fahrenheit 451 on the web

you can't stop me

[User 956]

and the use of more advanced technologies such as 'keyword filtering', which is used to track down material by identifying sensitive words.

As the FCC has found out, people will just make up new words, that are worse than the old words. Like "Blumpkin".

Whereas...

[whorapedia.com]

...in America, you can use the internet however you like, right? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/15/145221 4 [slashdot.org]

government

[gravesb]

Government, please stay off of the Internet. Freedom of speech involves some risk. Let the people choose if they take that risk or not, but if you take it from us, you take our freedom as well.

Re:Gee...

[drinkypoo]

It's too bad we didn't turn the Internet over to the UN like you guys all wanted...

Which UN? The one that continually turns a blind eye to human rights violations until their complicity shows up in the news? The one that can't do anything without the US' say-so? I fail to see how that would be useful.

Re:government

[daveschroeder]

The countries censoring the internet in this way don't want people to have free speech or those freedoms you speak of.

well, yeah...

[PFI_Optix]

More people than ever are using the internet. This just in: more internet users than ever are censored.

Should we be surprised here? I'm not.

Re:uh oh

[Original Replica]

That's why I'm an anarchist

I appreciate your rejection of all governments as self feeding power machines, but even en masse anarchists will not help the ills of society. Largely because anarchists are not very organized, but also because government is a necessary evil. Necessary if for nothing else to free us from more oppressive governments. So I ask you as your fellow countryman, to get personally involved in politics. No revolution was won by apathy. (pun only partially intended)

From Common Sense

government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html [bartleby.com]

Fact of life

[jandersen]

Listen everyone: Censorship is a fact of life. You may not like the way some do it; but we all do it, and most think their kind of censorship is just fine.

No matter whether we think we believe in Freedom and all that, we all know that there has to be limits to what can be said. It is generally accepted that 'Freedom of Speech' doea not allow us to perpetrate crimes on the net - such as soliciting child pornography or teaching how to fly passenger planes into tall buildings, just to mention a few. The question is where should the limit go - should we allow hardcore porn on websites that target children? No?

A very big factor in what one thinks is suitable is culture - have you ever seen those adverts for HSBC (an international bank)? They are all about how some things are different in different countries (and how important local knowledge is); like eg. that showing your bare feet may be fine in USA or Australia, but is considered extremely rude in Thailand. What I am saying here is: You and I don't necessarily know what is an absolute no-no in other countries, and we should not be too hasty in condemning what other countries choose is not acceptable on the Net. Filtering in China is after all not denying Americans access to things they feel are OK.

On the other hand, I fully understand and respect that there are certain things that should never be censored - but I don't think freedom of speech as a fundamental right is something you can use as an excuse for not being able to show a bit of cultural sensitivity. One of the main reasons that freedom of speech is important is that democracy doesn't work without it - people must have the right to know all there is to know about the decision they make when they vote; it is not primarily there to ensure that everybody can pour all kinds of tripe out in the public space.