program21's Journal: Internet Censorship

A Pennsylvania state judge ruled today the UUNet had to block access to 5 web sites. Granted, they were child porn sites, but the bigger issue here is the ease at which censorship can be imposed, and the inability on the part of those affected to effectively fight back against injustice.
First, keep in mind that I do not like child porn sites. I suppose it's a start that action is being taken against them, but this is clearly the wrong way to go about it.

Here's a question to think about - if there's a stretch of highway on which people like to race, and there are frequently accidents along that stretch, is the DOT supposed to close the road? People wouldn't stand for that. It's not the DOT's fault that people misuse the road. And it's certainly not the fault of an ISP that it's customers use their service to break the law. The ISP has done nothing wrong, just as the DOT did nothing wrong in the example I made above.

Censorship, in any form, is a violation of freedom. As soon as I can only see what I've been expressly granted permission to see, I can no longer trust those things that I can see. It's only a matter of time before other states pass laws that give the Assembly the power to censor a site. That would be the end of the Internet as the last independant news source, since there's no doubt that the censorship system would be ineptly managed (like nearly every over state agency, in any stat) and exploited for personal gain. During election time, incumbents could censor the web sites of their opponents. Any site which posts negative stories about the candidate (even if they are true) could be censored.

The scary part of this case is the total absence of any kind of oversight. Sites are being shut down on the whim of a single man, who wasn't even elected to his position. Some say this makes him more impartial to politics, but I think it makes him more susceptible to being 'bought'. It's a lot easier to act on the behalf of someone giving you money when you never have to worry about what the public thinks. A judge can't be removed just because people don't like him.

There's been a recent uproar about China's internet filtering. With the upcoming elections in China, the government is blocking access to web sites and searches for "politically sensitive" topics. It's called the Great Firewall, and the argument has been made that it's about as low as a government can go in restricting access to information. It's my feeling that it's only a matter of time until we start seeing such a thing (on a lesser scale) here in America.

Like I said before, I don't like the fact that there's child porn on the Internet. But the way to take action is to prosecute the owners of these sites, not to block access to them. There's no mention of whether or not the sites being blocked are foreign or domestic. If it's a foreign site, it's not our reponsibility to do anything about, except make the appropriate authorities in whatever country aware of it. And if it's in a country where such things aren't illegal, then we should not take it upon ourselves to the the Internet Police for the world. We're only going to make enemies that way, and stir up more anti-American sentiment in those countries.

Keep up the good work, America, the "land of the free".