Unlimited Freedom of Speech: The Evolution of the Internet - Essay Sample

Introduction

The establishment of the internet was for the purpose of establishing a secure network that the government could use in storing critical data in multiple places to avert the loss of such data in case of an attack on a central location. Decades later, however, the internet has become an outlet of free speech where anyone can be heard not just where he or she is, but all around the world instantly. As a result, a sea of information has found its way on the internet with little to no censorship. The question that begs is whether or not the internet gives free speech too much freedom. The premise of this discussion is to argue that censorship of the internet is unnecessary.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The United Nations declaration that access to the internet is a fundamental human right reverberates the importance of maintaining and sustaining freedoms that are prevalent on the internet as pertains to free expression of ideas. For this reason, any country that is a signatory to the UN charter should abide by the advice of the UN and; hence, should not censor the net. Moreover, censorship of the internet is an infringement on the 1st amendment rights as envisaged in the USA Constitution that guarantees the members of the public access to information (Trainer).

Legalities aside, censorship of the internet is unnecessary because it is undue suppression of ideas. Borrowing from examples of China and North Korea, both of which are nations that have implemented a ban on the use of the internet beyond the prescribed purposes as advised by the respective governments. Citizens in both countries are restricted from sharing their thoughts freely (Mehta). Equally, deliberate blocking of certain websites by the governments has limited access to information by their citizens. In China, for instance, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are among the sites blocked by the government.

Internet censorship is unnecessary also because it goes against the moral code of equality. Censorship of the net ends up allowing a one-sided view or perspective of issues, which then discriminates and infringes on the rights of the censored to express or defend their ideology. Hate speech, for instance, is a scapegoat for internet censorship where one group is censored on grounds of advancing hate when, in reality, censorship is meant to muffle their opinions (Mehta). Put plainly, there is no need to muffle ideas that you do not necessarily agree with, it does not hurt anyone if such ideas are expressed provided both sides of the divide are equally and fairly represented.

Equally, internet censorship is unnecessary as it is tantamount to a dictatorship rather than the ideal democratic rule (Trainer). A civilized democratic rule requires that society is allowed to critically think and actively participate in a debate that influences growth in socio-political and economic spheres. What internet censorship does is that it minimizes the development of critical thought among its users and instead presents a one-sided perspective that is often the censor's bias (Mehta). Consequently, half-truths and whole lies throng a censored internet where the power of censorship is utilized to make people ignorant and susceptible to being controlled.

Censorship of the net is unnecessary since it lacks a basis for accountability. A censored web has no one to blame for actions taken by individuals. Instead, a blanket layer of the blame is cast on the government agencies. In a society where people are held accountable for their actions, people take responsibility to be moral and to act justly. However, when freedoms of expressions are taken away, the moral obligation is left to the government agencies that control the internet (Trainer). In other words, a censored internet shifts the responsibility of gatekeeping to the government as opposed to individuals. The government then has to cede more control over responsibilities; hence, not making individuals accountable but instead becoming accountable on behalf of its citizens, which is really not the role of government.

If anything, else does not compel that censorship of the web is unnecessary to consider the fact that various technologies are available at affordable and easily accessible means that can bypass all forms of government censorship (Trainer). In China, a program dubbed "Freegate" allows internet users to bypass government censorship without the government managing to track their activities. The "Dark Web" is yet another tool that is used to mask internet users when accessing banned sites using a program called "TOR Browser" (Mehta). What these programs and software prove is that censorship of the internet is an action in futility as people who are determined to bypass censorship will source such tools to achieve their end.

In essence, censorship of any kind is at its core detrimental to the social fabric of societal core attributes associated with freedom of expression and is; therefore, in all manner of nature, unnecessary. Internet censorship, in particular, is unnecessary for the six reasons presented above. At its core, internet censorship stifles healthy sharing, production, and consumption of information critical to the wellness of societal growth whether in economic, social, or political circles. Advancing freedom of expression on the internet does not sit well with censorship of the same.

Works Cited

Mehta, Ivan. "Study: North Korea, China, and Russia Top Internet Censorship Charts." TNW 15 January 2020. 27 03 2020. <https://thenextweb.com/privacy/2020/01/15/study-north-korea-china-and-russia-top-internet-censorship-charts/>.

Trainer, Mark. "Censor the Internet? Bad Idea." Share America 31 January 2018. 27 03 2020. <https://share.america.gov/censor-internet-bad-idea/>