‘There is a time and place for censorship of
the internet.’ Discuss with particular
reference to the right of freedom of
expression.
In order to discuss this premise, one must address several questions. Should
the internet be censored, and if so, to what extent? Do the benefits of
censorship compensate for the violation of one’s freedom of expression—a
human right enshrined under international law? In this essay, I will argue that
censorship is justified, albeit only in situations where one’s expression has
infringed upon the wellbeing of others. My reasoning relies upon two points:
firstly, that censorship can be used to block fake news and discrimination,
resulting in a better-informed society; and secondly, that censorship can be
used to protect vulnerable users from harmful content.
I will begin with my first claim: censorship can be used as a safeguard against
false claims and prejudices. Following the 2020 US presidential election,
Donald Trump used his digital presence to advocate theories concerning
“election fraud”. By spreading unsubstantiated claims, Trump kickstarted the
US capital riot: a mass gathering that exacerbated political tensions and
endangered the lives of many police officers. From this example, it is clear that
censorship is not merely beneficial, but necessary in preventing chaos. If media
outlets, such as Fox News and Twitter, had removed Trump’s “election fraud”
posts, his “proud boys” would likely not have felt incentivised to attack. By
filtering fake information, governments are able to prevent citizens from
making misguided judgements based on skewed narratives.
However, although censorship can be used for widespread benefit, this can
only occur under one condition: that those censoring are fair and transparent.
the internet.’ Discuss with particular
reference to the right of freedom of
expression.
In order to discuss this premise, one must address several questions. Should
the internet be censored, and if so, to what extent? Do the benefits of
censorship compensate for the violation of one’s freedom of expression—a
human right enshrined under international law? In this essay, I will argue that
censorship is justified, albeit only in situations where one’s expression has
infringed upon the wellbeing of others. My reasoning relies upon two points:
firstly, that censorship can be used to block fake news and discrimination,
resulting in a better-informed society; and secondly, that censorship can be
used to protect vulnerable users from harmful content.
I will begin with my first claim: censorship can be used as a safeguard against
false claims and prejudices. Following the 2020 US presidential election,
Donald Trump used his digital presence to advocate theories concerning
“election fraud”. By spreading unsubstantiated claims, Trump kickstarted the
US capital riot: a mass gathering that exacerbated political tensions and
endangered the lives of many police officers. From this example, it is clear that
censorship is not merely beneficial, but necessary in preventing chaos. If media
outlets, such as Fox News and Twitter, had removed Trump’s “election fraud”
posts, his “proud boys” would likely not have felt incentivised to attack. By
filtering fake information, governments are able to prevent citizens from
making misguided judgements based on skewed narratives.
However, although censorship can be used for widespread benefit, this can
only occur under one condition: that those censoring are fair and transparent.
