Eaton 1

Nicholas Eaton
Ms. Gardner
English 10H 0 Period
3 May 2015
Internet Censorship: The Slippery Slope Towards Restricting Free Speech
How would it feel to have your views, beliefs, opinions and ideals stolen from you for no
apparent reason, cast aside like a forgotten toy or disposed of like rotten meat? The path of
internet censorship is a slippery slope, and this is the key, most fundamental reason why
discussing censorship is so important today so society as a whole may be aware of the
consequences it will have on tomorrow. Censorship is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary
as the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, film, news, or other media that are
considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. It is an especially potent
topic in this modern day and age, as we are in the middle of the media revolutionthe point
where anyone and everyone has at least some measure of access to, and the ability to
communicate through, the internet. The small, yet continual attempts by governments across the
globe to shut down certain outlets for expression on the net could eventually transform into a
much less benign practice if it is not confronted here and now. Internet censorship must be kept
in check in order to protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the
internet itself.
Initially, many may argue that internet censorship is a necessary medium for the removal
of content deemed by society as unsavory, unethical or taboo. For example, in the article U.S.
Islamic Web Site is Taken Down, written by Ravi Somiaya, a prestigious journalist for The New
York Times, the stated author describes a website entitled RevolutionMuslim.com, which was

Eaton 2
responsible for praising a young woman who stabbed a British lawmaker over his support of the
Iraq war. The website even encouraged other Muslims to raise the knife of Jihad (Somiaya)
against other such supporters of the war. Clearly, this website was directly responsible for the
promotion of violence and terrorism, and is exactly the kind of content that supporters of internet
censorship praise censorship for removing from the net.
Another example is detailed in the article Green Light for Internet Filter Plans a piece
written anonymously and featured on the Sirs database. In this article, the anonymous author
describes the Australian governments plans to block overseas websites known to contain
criminal violence, including, but not limited to, child sex abuse and sexual violence. While one
can argue that any measure of censorship technically removes freedom of speech and is
detrimental to the ideals of a neutral net, many would agree that websites promoting violence and
terrorism, including RevolutionMuslim.com, the websites on Australian government blacklist,
and any others that spread crime, terror and other such criminal activities should be removed
from the net. Just like criminals in the real world, these sites must also abide to the law and be
censored or removed entirely in order to stop their fear mongering and promotion of illegal
activities such as drugs, violence, and sexual abuseacts that would, in real life, land a heavy
prison sentence to the accused party if they were found guilty. In summation, proponents of
internet censorship typically have their goals set to remove content which threatens the social
order and encourages violence and anarchy, and while it is undeniable that this is a deeply
profound reason to support censorship, this reasoning becomes inert once the real issues behind
censorship arisethe removal of content due to the opinions or viewpoints expressed by the
author. Once society ventures further into the enigma that is censorship of the internet and
begins to block content for reasons other than simply enforcing the law, that is the moment

Eaton 3
where our fundamental freedoms, of speech, expression, and of the internet itself, are nullified
and censorship begins to show its true colors.
While censorship of the internet can have its benefits, when one begins to consider the
repercussions internet censorship can have on innocent people, the advantages of removing
content from the web begin to become insignificant compared to the adverse effects they possess.
For example, the article State Efforts to Censor Web Seen as Intensifying (Goel), written by
Vindu Goel, another author for the New York Times, details how a page promoting a rally for the
freeing of Aleksei Navalny, a Russian anti government activist who was imprisoned by the
Russian government for his controversial views on the governing bodies of Russia, was shut
down per request of the Russian authorities. The Russian blogger Anton Nosik stated that It was
absurd for a government to think it could easily stamp out an article or video when it can be
copied or found elsewhere with a few clicks (Goel). However, unfortunately for supporters of
Navalny, his trial was silently moved to an earlier date in order to diminish protests, and the page
remained blocked. This is a clear example of how freedom of speech can be violated by
censorship, as not only were this mans opinions hidden from the public, but so were the views
of millions of people willing to rally for his freedom. The second the Russian government took
that page down, they took the voice from the lungs of millions of people advocating for their
own beliefs as well. Clearly, the governments role in blocking Navalnys content not only
removed his freedom of speech and expression but also stole these freedoms from millions of
other citizens.
Another example detailed in the aforementioned article by Vindu Goel describes the
shutdown of Twitter, one of the most prominent social media sites, in Turkey when secret
documents and audio recordings were leaked via the site. This shutdown ultimately led to

Eaton 4
citizens hacking the government firewalla nationwide restriction on what people in the country
can search and browse on the internetto access the site which is considered one of the greatest
boons to Turkish society. This information shows that, if given the means, some governments are
willing to remove content, or even entire websites they do not approve of from the net in order to
maintain secrecy and or strengthen their influence on society. In summary, utter control over
censorship cannot be safely entrusted to one single organization, lest they become overzealous
and begin to abuse their power. Even if they have good intentions, ultimately no one entity is
completely free from corruption, and it is more than likely that, given the opportunity, many
humans will exploit their power for personal gain, especially to silence those who oppose them.
While governments and corporations play a central role in the ongoing debate over
internet censorship, it does not always have to be a single organization or government that
organizes a campaign of censorship. That is the case documented in the article Facebook, Please
Dont Let the Mullahs Troll Us (Mariam), written by Memarsadeghi Mariam, a prominent
Iranian-American politician and diplomat, as well as a human rights advocate. The article details
the account of the censorship forced onto Tavaana, a civil-society empowerment act in Iran
supporting modern-day, first-world ideals in the country. However, once they posted a picture of
a woman in a bikini on their Facebook page, thousands of enraged Muslim citizens sprang to
action and spam-reported the image, eventually forcing Facebook to acknowledge the photo as
unacceptable content, as several groups felt that the woman was dressed too revealingly and
was being immodest. Due to the algorithms of the site, if enough people report a post on
Facebook, no matter the content, it will automatically be flagged as violating the terms of use
and be terminated from the site.

Eaton 5
This shows us that the desire to live in ones own ideal world, whether that be one where
people must conform to social codes, or one where everyone respects one nation as absolute, is
not exclusive to governments and organizations. Indeed, these desires can be fostered by entire
civilizations, by a religious faction or even simply by lone individuals. In conclusion, its clear
that as a society people will enforce their own ideology, and, even without a government,
humans can and will find ways to censor and remove content they disapprove of. However, as
the creators and designers of the internet, it is our responsibility to transcend these issues and to
maintain the internets neutrality from governments, organizations and society itself.
While many of the concerns over internet censorship relate to the future, today there
already are a handful of powerful nations who have embraced censorship culture and managed to
mask the reality of the world from the eyes of the majority of their population. In Kristy Hughes
article, Gathering Clouds over Digital Freedom?, the whole picture of the depth of censorship
culture in modern society is unearthed. even in modern cultures. Hughes's article details how
several countries have already embraced statewide censorship policies and restricted public
access to the internet, Countries such as China and Iran have, unsurprisingly, been in the
vanguard of those trying to build firewalls, block websites, and in myriad ways limit, control and
monitor their population's use of, and access to, the web. (Hughes) In total, the article reveals
that the levels of censorship in these countries are so high that even Google, the champion of
conforming to virtually every law it must to remain online in every country, decided to terminate
their presence in China due to the levels of censorship they would have been forced to abide by if
they had attempted to maintain their presence there.
All in all, censorship can be used for both good and for evil; however, it is more often
than not used to support the causes of groups or individuals in order to reinforce their own

Eaton 6
opinions and policiessomething that is unacceptable in todays modern society. For the sake of
everyones freedoms and for the integrity of the web itself, we all must strive to show that
censorship for personal gain cannot and will not be tolerated to any degree, and that in terms of
censoring the work of others online, less truly is more.

Works Cited:
Anonymous. "Green Light for Internet Filter Plans." ABC Premium News (Sydney,
Australia). 15 Dec. 2009: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 04 May 2015.
Goel, Vindu, and Andrew E Kramer. "State Efforts to Censor Web Seen As Intensifying."
International New York Times. 03 Jan. 2015: 9. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 05
May 2015.

Eaton 7
Hughes, Kirsty. "Gathering Clouds Over Digital Freedom?." Opendemocracy.net. 12 Mar.
2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 05 May 2015.
Memarsadeghi, Mariam, and Akbar Atri. "Facebook, Please Don't Let the Mullahs Troll Us."
Wall Street Journal. 25 Nov. 2014: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 05 May
2015.
Somaiya, Ravi. "U.S. Islamic Web Site Is Taken Down." New York Times. 06 Nov. 2010:
A.5. SIRS Issues

Researcher. Web. 04 May 2015.