Jose Cortez
CST 373
May 11, 2017
Censorship
Censorship is a topic that treads a very fine line and is one that most experience differently depending on their culture and government. In today’s tech savvy culture it has become a focus of discussion. We question how much is appropriate and how much is a knock on our rights. Although censorship comes in many forms, due to the restriction of this paper I will only be addressing the two which I feel are the most damaging. The first is government censorship, specifically on the web and on social websites. The second is the domestic censorship that we often see in media. This paper will address the parties involved for both sides of the issues and it will attempt to address what ethical framework is best when dealing with censorship.
Censorship In Government
Government censorship can be a heated topic of debate and one which usually revolves around two extremes, the view that argues for less censorship and more transparency, and the view which argues that censorship is a necessity in some instances and is crucial for any government to run smoothly. Of course there is a line of moderation for both sides and most governments do not lean too extremely to either side. When discussing government censorship it is important to recognize what parties are involved. In this case the party most affected is civilians. Their rights and values vary depending their governments and culture, however most first world democratic countries are beginning to push the idea that access to the web is a human right. Government censorship exists in every government around the world, but for the sake of this paper we will only be focusing on a handful of interesting examples. Although it may not seem like it Australia is actually one of the more censored first world societies in the world. The Australian government has set filters for their online searches in order to prevent indecent content such as child pornography. Now, although most governments around the world do this, Australia's government does not stop there and instead has created a blacklist in which certain websites are completely forbidden. Websites such as wikileaks are included in this blacklist and any websites that link users to blacklisted websites will themselves be added to the blacklist with a $11,000 fine to top it off. This blacklist was created in 2003 when “the Australia Institute commenced campaigning for mandatory filtering of all Internet access by Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs)” (“Internet Censorship…”). The content that was required to be filtered included but was not limited to computer games, books, magazines, information on euthanasia, forums on anorexia, and much more (“Australia's Censored…”). When exploring the government censorship it is near impossible to discuss without bringing up perhaps the most extreme government in this regard. The Chinese government, whether in the right or wrong, has the most restrictive censorship laws when it comes to the world wide web. Besides having some of the most filtered search engines in the world, China also has some of the most restrictive social media laws. Websites such as Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook are not accessible without using a VPN (Virtual Private Network). Having such restrictive online guidelines has given China the nickname “The Great Firewall of China”. China also employs around 50,000 “Internet Police” who are in charge of monitoring chinese citizen’s online actions and arresting those who violate chinese law. Among censored searches are any kind of information regarding Tibetan independence or any similar democracy movements. Since China is still technically communist these restricted searches may be for fear of any kind of democratic movements. As mentioned, the chinese government also heavily interferes with social media websites. Since sites like Facebook and Twitter are banned, China has its own handful of social media websites for its citizens to use. These websites are heavily monitored to insure that there is no unwanted discussion about any ideas or ideologies that the chinese government disagrees with. If such a post or comment is found it is quickly deleted and the citizen is placed under closer inspection. However, these comments are usually not removed, according to researcher Gary King, “Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content.” (King). To elaborate on this, the chinese government worry more about social posts that detail some kind of protest or social mobilization instead of those who which criticize it. Another example of government censorship is Germany and its prohibition of symbols of any “political party which has been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court” (Keating). Included in these political parties is the Nazi party which was established in 1920. This means that symbols such as the swastika and the Nazi salute are not banned in Germany. Punishments for violating this law range from fines to up to 3 years in prison. Nazi propaganda such as Adolf Hitler’s famous book Mein Kampf are also prohibited. However, the German government allows exceptions, specifically any uses for educational purposes or for satire.
Censorship In Media
Another more domestic form of censorship that is often overlooked is censorship in media. This section will explore some of the history of censorship in media in the United States as well as how it is implemented in television programs. Television has been around for many decades so it can be hard to recall the days when there was no rating system in place. A fascinating form of media censorship that began in the United States in 1997 is the FCC’s (Federal Communication Commision) television parental guidelines. The FCC was appointed to punish “indecent” expression on radio and broadcast television. This power came from a law passed in 1978 which banned “obscene, profane, or indecent” language on the airways. Therefore these guidelines were incorporated into american television in order to protect younger audiences from content deemed disturbing or inappropriate (Heins). For example the TV14 rating was placed on shows which contained material considered too graphic for children under the age of 14. A prime example of a television series that has been targeted by these guidelines is the classic animated show South Park. South Park was the first show to be given the TVMA rating when it aired in 1997 on Comedy Central, a network which at this time was on the decline. At this point in time the FCC had very restrictive guidelines for television and expletives such as “pussy” and “shit” were taboo and not allowed to be said on air for most networks. South Park used this opportunity to push the boundaries on what was allowed on television. In its early episodes it started airing such words as “pussy” and they even dedicated an episode to the word “shit”. Eventually more networks joined in and the firm grip that the FCC once had on networks loosened up. The FCC achieves control over television shows by forcing artists and producers to go through the Standards and Practices Department. This department is the invisible force that lies between the artist and their audience. Also known as “censors” these departments are in charge of going over every script, every part of the production process, and they usually are required to preview the program before it airs (Silverman). The program must comply with any changes the censor requests, if they fail to comply with any requests than the program will not air. Proponents of censorship in media often argue that censoring disturbing content protects us from having negative reactions or emotions. A study in 1992 known as “Women Viewing Violence” produced results that back up this claim. The case consists of women being shown four different films, each with different acts of disturbing actions such as rape and other similar violence. After some questioning the study concluded that women who view violent content in which women are mistreated end up feeling more vulnerable, less comfortable, and less valued members of society (Barker). Opponents of media censorship will often argue that censorship does not protect civilians in any way and that in fact it only increases the hysteria around important issues. Studies that support this often cite the phenomenon known as “The Third Person Effect”. “The Third Person Effect” is the hypothesis that people believe that mass media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves. In a study that examined predictors of support for censorship, they found that “The third-person effect for aggression predicted greater support for censorship, but the third-person effect for mean-world perceptions did not. However, when perceived effects on self and others were examined separately, greater support for censorship was associated with respondents' beliefs that violent content increased others' aggressive tendencies but their own mean-world perceptions” (Hoffner). In other words, those with a greater support for censorship view others as more sensible to increased aggressiveness from watching violent media than themselves.
My Ethical Conclusion
I have a always seen the world in a utilitarian way, I believe that there are general rules that make the system better, however if the greater good requires it than exceptions should be made. I can see where some of the censorship comes from, obviously banning child pornography is a must and I could even understand the intentions behind censoring certain forums such as those which paint anorexia or suicide in a positive light. Those who lean towards the censorship side will point out governments such as Germany who have banned symbols from the nazi era from being displayed publicly. I can also understand this point of view even though I disagree with it, not because I am a Nazi sympathizer but, because I believe that in a democracy you should have freedom of speech as long as it is not physically harming anyone. However, the red lights start flashing when a government starts censoring webpages such as wikileaks and other whistleblower sites. This behavior is ineffective and it only incentivises their citizens to find a way to look it up. I am a firm believer that the more you try to hide something the more attention it will bring. In the case of government censorship I believe that the more transparent a government is the more respected it is by its citizens. I also believe that transparent governments spew out less corruption and have more active civilians in politics. Censorship should only be used against the most heinous of acts, such as filtering child pornography or websites which thrive on causing damage. Governments should also be allowed to keep military tactics and secrets censored, as long as they have a declassifying date further down the line. When it comes to media especially television, I believe that there should be very minimal censorship. By that I mean that as long as it is not child pornography and as long as there is a clear warning on the type of content being presented, anything is game. Television shows such as South Park have proven that after you cross the line everyone forgets where it used to be. There is no harm from hearing a couple of expletives, awareness overpowers ignorance. Children seek that which they are not allowed to have that’s why I believe that if they are introduced to them without any kind of drama or secrecy they will fare the same or if not better. In conclusion I believe that a small degree of censorship is a requirement for a government to run smoothly, however I believe that when it comes to censorship in the media there should be as little as possible.
Works Cited
Barker. Martin, Petely. Julian, (2001) III Effects: The Media Violence Debate
Keating, Joshua. "Germany Banned Its Ugly Historic Symbols. Should We Do That Too?
" Slate Magazine. N.p., 24 June 2015. Web. 20 May 2017.
KING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. (2013). How Censorship in China Allows
Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political
Science Review, 107(2), 326-343. doi:10.1017/S0003055413000014
Heins, Marjorie. “Not in Front of the Children: 'Indecency,' Censorship, and the
Innocence of Youth”. May 2017
NA. Internet Censorship Laws in Australia. NA, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
NA. "Australia's Censored Society." Censorship. NA, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.
CST 373
May 11, 2017
Censorship
Censorship is a topic that treads a very fine line and is one that most experience differently depending on their culture and government. In today’s tech savvy culture it has become a focus of discussion. We question how much is appropriate and how much is a knock on our rights. Although censorship comes in many forms, due to the restriction of this paper I will only be addressing the two which I feel are the most damaging. The first is government censorship, specifically on the web and on social websites. The second is the domestic censorship that we often see in media. This paper will address the parties involved for both sides of the issues and it will attempt to address what ethical framework is best when dealing with censorship.
Censorship In Government
Government censorship can be a heated topic of debate and one which usually revolves around two extremes, the view that argues for less censorship and more transparency, and the view which argues that censorship is a necessity in some instances and is crucial for any government to run smoothly. Of course there is a line of moderation for both sides and most governments do not lean too extremely to either side. When discussing government censorship it is important to recognize what parties are involved. In this case the party most affected is civilians. Their rights and values vary depending their governments and culture, however most first world democratic countries are beginning to push the idea that access to the web is a human right. Government censorship exists in every government around the world, but for the sake of this paper we will only be focusing on a handful of interesting examples. Although it may not seem like it Australia is actually one of the more censored first world societies in the world. The Australian government has set filters for their online searches in order to prevent indecent content such as child pornography. Now, although most governments around the world do this, Australia's government does not stop there and instead has created a blacklist in which certain websites are completely forbidden. Websites such as wikileaks are included in this blacklist and any websites that link users to blacklisted websites will themselves be added to the blacklist with a $11,000 fine to top it off. This blacklist was created in 2003 when “the Australia Institute commenced campaigning for mandatory filtering of all Internet access by Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs)” (“Internet Censorship…”). The content that was required to be filtered included but was not limited to computer games, books, magazines, information on euthanasia, forums on anorexia, and much more (“Australia's Censored…”). When exploring the government censorship it is near impossible to discuss without bringing up perhaps the most extreme government in this regard. The Chinese government, whether in the right or wrong, has the most restrictive censorship laws when it comes to the world wide web. Besides having some of the most filtered search engines in the world, China also has some of the most restrictive social media laws. Websites such as Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook are not accessible without using a VPN (Virtual Private Network). Having such restrictive online guidelines has given China the nickname “The Great Firewall of China”. China also employs around 50,000 “Internet Police” who are in charge of monitoring chinese citizen’s online actions and arresting those who violate chinese law. Among censored searches are any kind of information regarding Tibetan independence or any similar democracy movements. Since China is still technically communist these restricted searches may be for fear of any kind of democratic movements. As mentioned, the chinese government also heavily interferes with social media websites. Since sites like Facebook and Twitter are banned, China has its own handful of social media websites for its citizens to use. These websites are heavily monitored to insure that there is no unwanted discussion about any ideas or ideologies that the chinese government disagrees with. If such a post or comment is found it is quickly deleted and the citizen is placed under closer inspection. However, these comments are usually not removed, according to researcher Gary King, “Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content.” (King). To elaborate on this, the chinese government worry more about social posts that detail some kind of protest or social mobilization instead of those who which criticize it. Another example of government censorship is Germany and its prohibition of symbols of any “political party which has been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court” (Keating). Included in these political parties is the Nazi party which was established in 1920. This means that symbols such as the swastika and the Nazi salute are not banned in Germany. Punishments for violating this law range from fines to up to 3 years in prison. Nazi propaganda such as Adolf Hitler’s famous book Mein Kampf are also prohibited. However, the German government allows exceptions, specifically any uses for educational purposes or for satire.
Censorship In Media
Another more domestic form of censorship that is often overlooked is censorship in media. This section will explore some of the history of censorship in media in the United States as well as how it is implemented in television programs. Television has been around for many decades so it can be hard to recall the days when there was no rating system in place. A fascinating form of media censorship that began in the United States in 1997 is the FCC’s (Federal Communication Commision) television parental guidelines. The FCC was appointed to punish “indecent” expression on radio and broadcast television. This power came from a law passed in 1978 which banned “obscene, profane, or indecent” language on the airways. Therefore these guidelines were incorporated into american television in order to protect younger audiences from content deemed disturbing or inappropriate (Heins). For example the TV14 rating was placed on shows which contained material considered too graphic for children under the age of 14. A prime example of a television series that has been targeted by these guidelines is the classic animated show South Park. South Park was the first show to be given the TVMA rating when it aired in 1997 on Comedy Central, a network which at this time was on the decline. At this point in time the FCC had very restrictive guidelines for television and expletives such as “pussy” and “shit” were taboo and not allowed to be said on air for most networks. South Park used this opportunity to push the boundaries on what was allowed on television. In its early episodes it started airing such words as “pussy” and they even dedicated an episode to the word “shit”. Eventually more networks joined in and the firm grip that the FCC once had on networks loosened up. The FCC achieves control over television shows by forcing artists and producers to go through the Standards and Practices Department. This department is the invisible force that lies between the artist and their audience. Also known as “censors” these departments are in charge of going over every script, every part of the production process, and they usually are required to preview the program before it airs (Silverman). The program must comply with any changes the censor requests, if they fail to comply with any requests than the program will not air. Proponents of censorship in media often argue that censoring disturbing content protects us from having negative reactions or emotions. A study in 1992 known as “Women Viewing Violence” produced results that back up this claim. The case consists of women being shown four different films, each with different acts of disturbing actions such as rape and other similar violence. After some questioning the study concluded that women who view violent content in which women are mistreated end up feeling more vulnerable, less comfortable, and less valued members of society (Barker). Opponents of media censorship will often argue that censorship does not protect civilians in any way and that in fact it only increases the hysteria around important issues. Studies that support this often cite the phenomenon known as “The Third Person Effect”. “The Third Person Effect” is the hypothesis that people believe that mass media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves. In a study that examined predictors of support for censorship, they found that “The third-person effect for aggression predicted greater support for censorship, but the third-person effect for mean-world perceptions did not. However, when perceived effects on self and others were examined separately, greater support for censorship was associated with respondents' beliefs that violent content increased others' aggressive tendencies but their own mean-world perceptions” (Hoffner). In other words, those with a greater support for censorship view others as more sensible to increased aggressiveness from watching violent media than themselves.
My Ethical Conclusion
I have a always seen the world in a utilitarian way, I believe that there are general rules that make the system better, however if the greater good requires it than exceptions should be made. I can see where some of the censorship comes from, obviously banning child pornography is a must and I could even understand the intentions behind censoring certain forums such as those which paint anorexia or suicide in a positive light. Those who lean towards the censorship side will point out governments such as Germany who have banned symbols from the nazi era from being displayed publicly. I can also understand this point of view even though I disagree with it, not because I am a Nazi sympathizer but, because I believe that in a democracy you should have freedom of speech as long as it is not physically harming anyone. However, the red lights start flashing when a government starts censoring webpages such as wikileaks and other whistleblower sites. This behavior is ineffective and it only incentivises their citizens to find a way to look it up. I am a firm believer that the more you try to hide something the more attention it will bring. In the case of government censorship I believe that the more transparent a government is the more respected it is by its citizens. I also believe that transparent governments spew out less corruption and have more active civilians in politics. Censorship should only be used against the most heinous of acts, such as filtering child pornography or websites which thrive on causing damage. Governments should also be allowed to keep military tactics and secrets censored, as long as they have a declassifying date further down the line. When it comes to media especially television, I believe that there should be very minimal censorship. By that I mean that as long as it is not child pornography and as long as there is a clear warning on the type of content being presented, anything is game. Television shows such as South Park have proven that after you cross the line everyone forgets where it used to be. There is no harm from hearing a couple of expletives, awareness overpowers ignorance. Children seek that which they are not allowed to have that’s why I believe that if they are introduced to them without any kind of drama or secrecy they will fare the same or if not better. In conclusion I believe that a small degree of censorship is a requirement for a government to run smoothly, however I believe that when it comes to censorship in the media there should be as little as possible.
Works Cited
Barker. Martin, Petely. Julian, (2001) III Effects: The Media Violence Debate
Keating, Joshua. "Germany Banned Its Ugly Historic Symbols. Should We Do That Too?
" Slate Magazine. N.p., 24 June 2015. Web. 20 May 2017.
KING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. (2013). How Censorship in China Allows
Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political
Science Review, 107(2), 326-343. doi:10.1017/S0003055413000014
Heins, Marjorie. “Not in Front of the Children: 'Indecency,' Censorship, and the
Innocence of Youth”. May 2017
NA. Internet Censorship Laws in Australia. NA, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
NA. "Australia's Censored Society." Censorship. NA, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.