• Internet censorship in China - Wikipedia
  • Censorship - Wikipedia
  • Should the U.S. government censor the Internet? – …

Internet censorship in China is extreme due to a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. More than sixty Internet …

Internet Knowledge and Tools - World Wide Web

PayPal Internet Censorship | National Review

Internet Censorship Laws in Australia
Photo provided by Flickr
Although the IWF proposals state that UK ISPs should bearresponsibility for their services, and take reasonable measuresto hinder the use of the Internet for illegal purposes, it iswrong to assume that ISPs should be held solely responsible forcontent provided by third parties on the Internet. The realproblem will remain elsewhere; in the real rather than virtualworld, where pornographic materials are originally created. Aslong as such material is produced, there can never be a totalsolution to its availability via the Internet. The Internet isjust another convenient tool for paedophiles who wish to trafficin these kind of materials.(46) The formation ofthe IWF sets a dangerous precedent for privatised censorship onthe Internet. A better approach would have been a freeconfidential telephone hot-line not run by the industry itself,akin to that run by the Metropolitan Police in London to combatterrorism. Furthermore, removing materials containing childpornography from the Internet at a UK level only is near futileas material can always be accessed by UK residents from computerslocated abroad.

The Internet Crackdown Begins: U.S

Internet censorship in China is extreme due to a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. More than sixty Internet regulations have been created by the government of China, which have been implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, companies, and organizations. The apparatus of China's Internet control is considered …
Photo provided by Flickr
It should not however be forgotten that the primeresponsibility for content lies with authors and primary contentproviders. Blocking access at the level of access providers wascriticised in the EU communication paper discussed above on theground that access is restricted to far more material than thelimited category of illegal communications. Such a restrictiveregime severely interferes with the freedom of the individual andthe political traditions of Europe. There is a real need for thelegal position of the ISPs to be clarified, so that they neednot, as at present, steer a path between accusations ofcensorship by users, and exposure to liability for the contentthey carry.

 

The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake …

The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online
Photo provided by Flickr
How pornography should be regulated is one of the mostcontroversial topics to have arisen in relation to the Internetin recent years. The widespread availability of pornography onthe Internet has stirred up a ‘moral panic’(1)shared by the government, law enforcement bodies such as thepolice, prosecutors and judges along with the media in general.(2)

China Extends Internet Crackdown With Ban on Celebrity Gossip
Photo provided by Pexels
‘Self-regulation in this field has a number of advantages. Rules devised by the media are more likely to be internalised and accepted. In addition, it may avoid heavy-handed legal intervention which carries with it the spectre of government censorship.’(41)


CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

‘As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.’

Federal Communications Commission | The United …

The action taken by the UK police appears to have beenill-considered and will not do much to reduce the availability ofpornographic content on the Internet. Furthermore, the list ofnewsgroups provided by the UK police includes much material thatis not illegal, such as legitimate discussion groups forhomosexuals, and discussion groups which do not contain anypictures, but contain text, sexual fantasies and stories. Thesewould almost certainly not infringe UK obscenity laws. The actionof the UK police also amounted to censorship of material withoutpublic debate in Parliament or elsewhere. Political action by theUK government would be preferable to random censorship by lawenforcement authorities.