As the Internet continues to become larger and more accessible, the issue of censorship cannot be avoided. The fact is, with such a vast network facilitating the sharing of ideas, people will say and do things that others will dislike. The question is: Where does society begin to limit personal expression? Peter Lewis' essay, "No More Anything Goes: Cyberspace Gets Censors," deals with this issue.
In America, the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of speech. There are gray areas, but the first amendment is sufficient for those whom it protects. There are, however, no such guarantees for most people; Americans often assume that everyone else in the world also has some similar form of protection for their free speech, when in fact they do not. People should be able to express themselves as they wish until the point where their expressions begin to infringe on the rights of others. How is this accomplished? How can we protect personal expression and simultaneously prevent that expression from harming others? Lewis addresses the debate with this observation:
The responsibility for any censorship rests not with a central authority but with the administrators of the thousands of private and public computer networks. Many of the administrators offer guidelines for users, but enforcement is usually left to peer pressure criticism from others using the network (116).
This form of censorship depends on the premises that online communities will agree upon what content is okay as well as work together to enforce standards. The fact of the matter is, with the unprecedented global community continuing to explode around us, we are navigating uncharted waters.
If the majority of Internet users are to agree on what online content should be allowed or disallowed--which is unlikely at best--then there still exists the task of deciding who is responsible for the censoring. Lewis makes another poignant observation: "For some networks, the legal questions hinge on whether they are to be considered common carriers, much like telephone companies or even book stores, which are not responsible for the content of the messages they carry, or to be regarded as private networks that have the right to establish and enforce standards of language and ethics for all users" (116). If it is decided that network providers are simply common carriers, then they would no longer be able to restrict any type of information sharing, just as the telephone company is not able to do so. So if the networks aren't in control, who is? The idea of various government agencies taking control is very disturbing. If governments were given reign over the digital world, then we could surely count on an overdose of censorship. As L. R. Beam points out in his essay, "The Conspiracy To Erect An Electronic Iron Curtain," "At stake is nothing less then the regaining of information control which the Internet has shattered. Up for grabs is nothing more than the thinking and decision making abilities of informed men." We can be sure of one thing: The issue of online and electronic censorship will not be easy to resolve, and the effects of our actions will have a profound impact on generations to come.
Beam, L.R. "The Conspiracy To Erect An Electronic Iron Curtain" 23 September 2001 <http://www.stormfront.org/iron_cur.htm>.
Internet Free Expression Alliance. 23 September 2001. <http://www.ifea.net>.
Lewis, Peter. "No More 'Anything Goes': Cyberspace Gets Censors." CyberReader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor J. Vitanza. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 1999. 7-17.
Established October 2001.