by AdamHat

Created on: September 14, 2010

The concept of censoring certain forms of expression is as old as language itself. The Internet is merely an extension of the free speech discussions. I will consider free speech in the context of the Internet on two levels: first, I will introduce the ideal state of expression, as explained by John Stuart Mill. Secondly, I will juxtapose those ideals with a more pragmatic approach to the issue, asking: will this actually happen in practice? By developing these two adjacent arguments, some ground may be covered on how to handle the extensive amount of data on the web.

Mill believes that any and all censorship constitutes as an impediment on our American right to free speech. He argues that even negative expressions are vital to the integrity of free speech. Hate speech and pornography, for example, are necessary in Mill’s absolute and unqualified liberty, because Mill believes there is an inherent self-fixing mechanism in communication. According to the argument, only in an environment free of censorship will unappreciated language be ultimately defeated. For instance, if free speech is being used to express hateful feelings towards another race or religion, Mill concludes that those expressions will be countered by the opposing view, one of tolerance and respect. Mill assumes that in such a situation, the more right, moral conversation will win over and eventually hate speech will die out. Thus, open dialogue about sensitive subjects generate a self-correction process where the preferred side will eventually reveal itself.

However, pragmatically, many individuals have seen a very different scenario take place. A hateful comment on one side is too-often countered by an equally hateful or emotionally-based attack, instead of relying on logic or reasoning. The discussion becomes an argument and it gets violent. The opposing solution is to place restrictions and censorship on particularly sensitive subjects. This seems to be the better choice. Yet, it isn’t as simple as plastering on a few restrictions. The solution is twofold: first, the government must only get involved in cases where the individual’s autonomy and safety is impeded. Secondly, and more importantly, the individual must take full responsibility as both an active reader and, for those who publish online, as a writer. It is, ultimately, the viewer’s duty to actively participate in the censorship process; it is a very individualistic process. One must decide on his or her own if the information they are reading is quality, beneficial data, or pornographic, destruction material. The reader is the one directly affected by the content, and thus the reader is the one who must decide what is best. The government’s duty is to allow its citizens that search for truth, autonomy, in the safest possible environment. The Internet is a giant whiteboard where anyone with a thought is able to scribble it down, often without thinking entirely through its repercussions. By introducing Internet education early in a child’s development, society could greatly increase the quality of the content that gets submitted online, thus reducing the need for direct censorship. In a way, when a society educates their youth, they are introducing the children to a self-censoring process of their own, which allows them to pick-and-choose information that is beneficial for them, and reject that which is not. Thus, education, minor censorship when necessarily, and reinforcing positive humanitarian prospects, are the key to providing a safe and informative Online community.

Learn more about this author, AdamHat.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.