Notes

[03/05 22:46] Metin Onat: In some cases, I'd argue that censorship is essential. The right to say absolutely anything at all is simply not a right, nor should it ever be. For example, if someone wants to make a claim about a product that is not true: "This product cures cancer".

If you haven't proven that your product cures cancer (or worse, has been proven not to cure cancer), then it is right and proper for your "right to free speech" to be limited and censored. If you intentionally seek to slander someone by making untrue claims about them that damage their, job, etc., then it is right and proper for your "right to free speech" to be limited and censored.

But it's a difficult line to define. For example, I fully support freedom of speech for racists, holocaust deniers, misogynists, and a wide variety of other ideologies that I personally find offensive. Because I do not think that you have a right to not be offended by someone else. People can hurt your feelings, make you feel disgusted, say things that offend you deeply...but you do not have a right to silence them, or demand that others silence them, because of that.

Only when actual, real harm is being done to others should censorship come into play. And therein lies the problem. At what point does it cross the line from being offensive, to being harmful?

I don't think there is any exact, perfect answer. But I personally prefer to err on the side of allowing speech, than censoring it. For the simple reason that I believe censorship overall harms more people than allowing free speech. Only in those situations where it causes very obvious, direct, blatant harm to others should it be practiced.
[03/05 22:47] Metin Onat: When foreign powers, such as powerful governments, are able to mobilize a country's people against their own government---merely for the former government's benefit---then I think censorship is justified.

For example: There are methods and strategies to penetrate inside a country and propagate certain anti-government ideologies, which are not so much based on truths, but on framed out selections of facts.

Sometimes you'll hear people give such people, whom locate themselves in a target country, terms such as provocators, spies, foreign agents etc.

These strategies are basically weapons against government. It might be a just cause to counter them by silencing the sources of such noise. But, of course, it's hard to judge when the propagated facts are true or not, or whether there is a conspiracy behind a movement.
[03/05 22:47] Metin Onat: Current Enemies of the Internet:
Bahrain: 2012 to present
Belarus: 2006-2008, 2012 to present
China: 2008 to present
Cuba: 2006 to present
Ethiopia: 2014 to present
India: 2014 to present
Iran: 2006 to present
North Korea: 2006 to present
Pakistan: 2014 to present
Russia: 2014 to present
Saudi Arabia: 2006 to present
Sudan: 2014 to present
Syria: 2006 to present
Turkmenistan: 2006 to present
United Arab Emirates: 2014 to present
United Kingdom: 2014 to present
United States: 2014 to present
Uzbekistan: 2006 to present
Vietnam: 2006 to present
Past Enemies of the Internet:

Egypt: 2006-2010
Myanmar: 2006 to 2013
Tunisia: 2006-2010
Current Countries Under Surveillance:
Australia: 2009 to present
Egypt: 2011 to present
Eritrea: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
France: 2011 to present
Kazakhstan: 2008 to present
Malaysia: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
South Korea: 2009 to present
Sri Lanka: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
Thailand: 2008 to present
Tunisia: 2011 to present
Turkey: 2010 to present
Past Countries Under Surveillance:

Bahrain: 2008-2009 and 2011
Belarus: 2009-2011
India: 2008-2013
Jordan: 2008
Libya: 2008 and 2011
Russia: 2010-2013
Tajikistan: 2008
United Arab Emirates: 2008 to 2013
Venezuela: 2011
Yemen: 2008-2009
[03/05 22:49] Metin Onat: The Internet can be a very disturbing and adult medium. There are parts of the Internet that should not be viewed by children. Explicit information can be found which is intended for an adult audience but children who have access to the Internet have become exposed to this material. The question at hand is who is responsible for preventing these children from viewing this material. Censoring the entire Internet would be one capable option. Though this option would be effective but it wouldn't be practical. Censoring the Internet would limit what adults could view and communicate. Owners of Internet servers should know of the possible information and people that can be found in this medium. Having the access to the vast information available on the Internet, a responsibility is needed. Censorship of the Internet is not needed as a whole, but the reasons for censorship are understandable. These reasons though, should be the responsibility of the individual user, not the government. Relying on the government is not the answer.



Prevention of children viewing and having access to elicit material can be achieved without banning the material from the Internet. I fully believe in censorship of the Internet: Censorship by the parents for their children. All is needed is responsibility by the parents of the children. If you are a parent willing to provide your child access to the Internet, then you need to take precaution. Most parents would prevent their child from looking at the adult section in a movie store, which in many cases they can get access to, then why would they allow their children access to such material on the internet?



The Internet is something that most of us must buy access to and which we then choose to surf on our own. And does the government really have the right to tell parents what books and magazines they can let their children read at home or what television programs or motion pictures they should let their children watch?