The open nature of the Internet enables freedom of speech at a global level previously unknown in human history. The fact that the Internet is not controlled by any single government body means that individual countries are censoring the Internet at whatever level deemed tolerable by their citizens. While many folks are all giddy about “the spread of democracy,” the fact remains that censorship of the Internet is on the rise.
Studies by the OpenNet Initiative (opennetinitiative.org) lay out the global censorship picture quite clearly. A joint effort by research groups at the University of Toronto in Canada, Cambridge and Oxford universities in England and Harvard University in the United States, the OpenNet Initiative has compiled Internet censorship studies of numerous countries around the globe. I found the following results most interesting.
China: the largest of the most oppressive Internet censors. Communist China blocks access to numerous websites for content related to human rights, opposition political movements, Taiwanese and Tibetan independence, and religious groups. Some news sites, such as the BBC, are also blocked. China achieves its Internet censorship using technology provided by American manufacturer Cisco. Because of the massive amounts of money involved with Chinese commerce, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo provide additional censorship services.
Predominantly Islamic countries: as a group, Muslim countries top the list as the most censorship-happy of them all. Nations such as Uzbekistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Syria lead the pack. Most block access to websites categorized as pornography, gambling and anonymizers (services that allow covert Web surfing). Also on the censorship hit lists are banned Islamic dissident movements, including Sunni Muslim governments banning Shiite websites and Shiite Muslim governments banning Sunni websites. Independent media sites such as the BBC are also blocked, as well as websites critical of the government’s human rights record. Especially censored are sites with cartoons of Muhammad, or that encourage Muslims to change religions, such as www.answering-islam.org. Some also block all websites from Israel.
Lest you think that Internet censorship is limited to the Middle and Far East, many Western countries are also happy to decide what its citizens are allowed to view. France and Germany top the list of those banning so-called “hate” websites.
Fortunately, the United States is still the land of the mostly-free, with “national level” Internet censorship largely limited to certain public institutions such as schools and libraries, as required by the Children’s Internet Protection Act. However, some disturbing censorship measures have recently been proposed, such as banning “hate” websites or political websites that promote certain candidates within so many days of an election. Curiously, the official Bush-Cheney website (www.georgewbush.com) was blocked to Internet users located outside the United States during the later part of the 2004 presidential election campaign. Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel was quoted as saying, “The measure was taken for security reasons.”
It’s interesting how many hard core free speech advocates turn into censorship ogres as soon as they discover their children surfing porn websites or being solicited by Internet perverts. I’m currently building a wireless network for the new Norman Institute for Performing Arts (www.nipahome.com). One option for the network is Internet content blocking; I have a feeling that the student’s parents will be all for it.