Activity 13: A Student Sample Outline of Position Paper 1
The following is a student sample and may contain some errors.
Internet Censorship: Because WE Know Best
I. Introduction
A. Thesis Statement:
With regards to the increasing demand from governments of the world to push for censorship of Internet content, the voices opposing such motions seem to be getting louder too in an attempt to clarify why such “filtering” would end up doing more harm than good on the social, political, educational and cultural fronts.
II. Now of course there are people out there that claim censorship of the internet is necessary.
A. Opponents claim that governments have every right to block what they claim to be supposedly innocent social networking sites.
1. They may have enabled cyber bullying and made way for people to express
their prejudices and racist opinions against certain groups.
B. Naturally they also believe in the “legitimate” limiting of free speech in cases of hate speech or in other words abuse of the right to freedom of speech by stepping over other people’s rights.
1. An example would be extremely religious groups attacking other parties on the internet or expressing racist opinions.
C. Opponents believe that censorship of extreme ideologies would prevent terrorism.
D. While I agree that in some limited cases social network sites can be misused they’re also a tool of great good in the right hands and have been repeatedly used to spark campaigns against cyber bullying itself as well as many other socially relevant issues (Reilly, VultureBeat).
E. Blocking forums and blogs where certain groups express hate or show prejudices has never been an effective way of dealing with the issue in itself.
1. It only serves to hinder its perpetuators or hide them from the public eye which, realistically, will only serve to anger them more.
2. A better way for the government to deal with such individuals would be to engage them in public forums and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance in their opinions. That way they’d be actively dealing with the problem rather than ignoring it.
F. Lastly, to propose that the banning of alleged “terrorist” content would help prevent terrorist attacks is childishly oversimplified and unrealistic.
1. It suggests that people are gullible and easily influenced by content online that they’d act on whatever it is they’re “exposed” to.
2. Censoring content won’t drive the bad guys away. It only serves to give people incomplete information.
III. The first reason why such “filtering” would end up doing more harm than
good is apparent when considering the social aspect.
A. The social front lies center stage in the fight against Internet censorship.
1. Limiting internet access and filtering its content is a violation of the basic human right to freedom of expression and speech.
2. “Unlike any other medium the Internet facilitated the ability of individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders. By vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an ‘enabler’ of other human rights, the Internet boosts economic, social and political development, and contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole” (humanrights.gov.au).
3. When governments censor content on the Internet they aren’t only hindering the development of an entire nation but they are also undermining it.
4. At the core of Internet censorship lies the notion that “As a government we’re protecting the people from inappropriate content and extremism.”
a. This is not only broad and unrealistic as the words “inappropriate” and “extreme” can be interpreted in a myriad of ways and are relative to each individual but it also implies that the people are incapable of logical thinking and analysis.
5. The Internet is used as an international and public space meaning that governments have no right to censor any of the information presented on it.
IV. The political front and activism is a very important aspect to discuss when it
comes to censorship of Internet content.
A. The Internet has served to educate millions of people in a vast array of subjects and interests and most notably teaching them a lot about their own basic human rights.
1. It’s been known that the regimes most eager to censor the Internet are those seeking to oppress their nations.
a. For example, the turmoil in Turkey back in early 2014 prior to the local elections and the subsequent blocking of social media sites including YouTube and Twitter show the power social media has in times of political unrest (Liebelson, MotherJones.com) and (Dungan, AdWeek.com).
b. China has been known to have the most censored internet in the world courtesy of their “Great Firewall”. They allowed their people to express their grievances on their Chinese social network sites such Weibo –the Twitter copycat- rather freely but the moment talk of a “meet-up” or “gathering” or any call for action would be deleted and the places mentioned for the gatherings would be ambushed (Ong, The Next web).
B. The Internet has served as a beacon of freedoms as well as a mobiliser for action not just against political corruption and injustices but also for social, economic and educational reform through Internet based campaigns.
C. Taking all of that into consideration, giving regimes the power to “censor”, “filter” and block sites however they deem necessary has always been in favor of the sustenance of their own positions in power rather than for the benefit of the powerless.
D. So to censor the Internet would be to limit people’s expression of their opinions and other individual’s rights to access these different points of view.
V. The third reason why such “filtering” would end up doing more harm than good is apparent when considering the cultural aspect.
A. One of the many excuses governments always use for Internet
censorship is banning and blocking of pornographic and violent content
as well as inappropriate use of language for the protection of children
surfing the net (Roberts, DailyMail).
1. But why the government itself would need to intervene when
there are countless free software and add block add-ons that
could solve the problem in mere seconds.
2. There are numerous filters and “safe search” options as well
as parental locks that would insure no explicit content would show up.
B. Also, every parent is entitled to their own methods of parenting.
1. Some would find it better to monitor their kids actively by
having the computer/ lap top they use be in a public space
rather than in their rooms.
2. Also the context of what “inappropriate” content means or
entails is so vast and much more than just pornographic
content. It could be a depiction of extremely slim models that
would warp little girls’ perceptions of beauty standards, for
example (Sigman, TheGuardian).
C. It’s also a well known fact that people don’t like to be bossed around
or told what is “best” for them by an authoritarian figure, or what in
this case would be a “nanny state”. A term devised for governments
that assume the mantra of “Father knows best.”
1. It only leads to anger, suspicion and revolt among the people.
2. Interfering with people’s private affairs such as “how to raise
their kids” or even their own usage of the internet is
culturally unacceptable.
VI. Conclusion