Following the the below essay plan I have created, as well as the annotated bibliography completed by Academon writer ProfDiggers previously completed for me, please write a 3000 word essay on 'What effect does Internet censorship
have upon freedom of expression?' (And examine the pros and cons of Internet censorship
on freedom of expression). Please use the exact same sources as cited in the annotated bibliography below, as well as additional sources (up to 20) for this major essay. Please also include a full reference/bibliography list at the end of the essay and cite all sources throughout using Harvard style referencing (including page numbers, author, date of publication etc).
Section 1: Research Question
Essay Question: Examine the pros and cons of Internet censorship
on freedom of expression.
Primary Question: What effect does Internet censorship
have upon freedom of expression?
1) What is Internet censorship
2) What are the reasons for and against Internet censorship
3) What are the side effects of internet censorship
4) How can internet censorship
5) How can Internet censorship
limit individual freedoms?
6) Why would internet censorship
be necessary or unnecessary in some situations?
Topic Words: Expression, Freedom, Censorship
Directive Words: Examine.
Limiting Words: Internet
Section 2: Annotated Bibliography
Kaul, V. 2012, The Pros and Cons of New Media and Media Freedom. Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism, Vol. 2, Issue 5.
In his research study, author-researcher Kaul discussed the implications of using Internet
technology in launching what is called the new media, both in the context of journalistic/press freedom and freedom of expression of the civil society in general. More specifically, the author provided a comparison of the ?old? (traditional) versus ?new? (Internet
/online) media, considering both as tools for freedom of expression, albeit the latter is more accessible. However, the article also discussed how the rise of the new media has not ?revolutionised? press freedom in some countries (namely, countries in South Asia and South Africa). What Kaul emphasised is the proliferation of new media as a replacement of old media, but without the expected improvement in press freedom. Instead, what occurred is a simple ?transplantation? of old media to new media, maintaining the limited freedom in expression of the press and the general public.
Merlis, S. 2005, Preserving the Internet
Expression While Protecting our Children: Solutions Following Ashcroft v. ACLU, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 4, Issue 1.
Merlis discussed in his analysis of the US Congress? failed attempts to pass the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in the Supreme Court the issue of creating a balance between maintaining the freedom of expression online and at the same time, protecting children from pornographic content readily available on the Internet
. COPA is the US Congress? solution to ensure and monitor the flow of information and content over the Internet
, particularly when individuals aged under 18 years old are using the technology. However, the Congress has failed to pass the COPA in the Supreme Court because the latter considered COPA as too stringent, bordering on curbing an individual?s right to information and freedom of expression. Merlis supported the Supreme Court?s recommendation to use filtering software to be used by parents/adults to effectively monitor the information/content that their children are able to see and access when they are online.
Faris, R., S. Wang, and J. Palfrey 2008, Censorship
2.0, Innovations, Spring 2008.
Faris et al made a compelling argument about the rapid proliferation of online-related content and exponential growth of Internet
, both as a social community and a new form of economy. In discussing these benefits of the Internet
, the authors also explored the ramifications of freedom to expression and information to society in general. At present, there is a need for governments to keep up with this exponential growth of the Internet
. Further, there has been no evidence providing a clear distinction whether or not content and information from the Internet
indeed contributes to ?knowledge accumulation and economic growth.? As a response to governments? belated response to regulating online content to protect specific groups in civil society and in the community of online users, governments have explored engaging in ?public-private transnational form of filtering.? It is through this initiative that a balance between freedom of expression and government protectionism and regulation of detrimental online content can be achieved, according to the authors.
Hom, S., A. Tai, and G. Nichols 2004, The Rise of the Internet
and Advancing Human Rights, China Rights Forum, No. 3.
The rise of the Internet
as an influential and central source of information globally has even permeated countries such as China, wherein Internet
content is highly regulated by the government. In the analysis conducted by Hom et al, the authors acknowledged that the Internet
technology has spurred governments like the Chinese government to take radical actions to censor online content in the country, while at the same time, other countries, including developed ones in the North American and European regions, are confronting issues of ?global governance? online. Thus, while the authors call for ?relaxed control? of the Chinese government of online content as a form of recognising human rights (the right to freedom of expression and right to information), they also recognise the need for governance of online content across all countries in the world taking advantage of and benefiting from Internet
Karhula, P. 2011, What is the effect of WikiLeaks for freedom of information?, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA).
Karhula centered his discussion on the issue of WikiLeaks as a case for analyzing freedom of expression and right to information using the online platform. In discussing the specifics of the WikiLeaks incident, Karhula argued that the WikiLeaks case is compelling in that it begs the question of whether information leakage about government conspiracies, inappropriate conduct, and even corruption would be best ?leaked? or accessed through a public, online forum. The author questions if the WikiLeaks case actually contributes to the ?kind of transparency which would support democracy and civil society.? It is possible that while it gave online users the information it needed about specific political and economic issues of the world, it could also pose as a propaganda mechanism that seeks to discredit governments and public officials from various governments all over the world. At present, the WikiLeaks case remains a compelling case for governments and civil societies to scrutinise and rethink about the way information is regulated and proliferated online.
Section 3: Essay Plan
Essay question: What are the pros and cons of Internet censorship
on freedom of expression?
Aim / purpose: To examine the effect Internet censorship
has upon freedom of expression and to argue both the pros and cons of this.
Specify limits / scope: Limited by definitions of expression, scope of research available, personal views or bias, conflicting viewpoints/arguments may not all be considered.
Key points for discussion:
? Brief history of censorship
in old and new media and discuss limitations on freedom of expression
? Discuss where concept of freedom of expression stems from
Summary of Essay argument: Freedom of expression is a basic human right but does this give us the right to impinge upon others personal privacy? When does the public?s right to know exceed the right to privacy of individuals/organisations and what examples can we use to see where this has worked and where it may not have worked and what are the moral implications of each decision made.
II. BODY (your key paragraphs/sections within your essay)
? Discuss pros of freedom of expression in online context
Summary of supporting argument:
? The pros demonstrate that there are many cases when the public or individual have a right to know as it has a direct impact upon their quality of education, understanding and interaction with the world.
? Discuss cons of freedom of expression in online context
Summary of supporting argument:
? The cons demonstrate that there are examples where without internet censorship
, lives can be endangered, damaging messages can be spread and unlawful behaviour can be encouraged, putting the individual and society at risk.
? Discuss affects both pros and cons of internet censorship
have had upon freedom of expression
Restate main points. Make any allusions to further research / direction of topic:
? Summarise all points made
? Conclude with potential moral and ethical dilemmas regarding internet censorship
and freedom of expression.
? Briefly discuss current climate of Internet Censorship
and posit a few hypothesis on the potential climate surrounding current and foreseen issues into the future.
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]
Calingaert, D. (2010). Authoritarianism vs. The Internet. Policy Review. 160 (1), 63-75.
Dibbell, J. (2012). The Shadow Web. Scientific American. 306 (3), 60-65.
Eneman, M. (2010). ISP Filtering of Chlid-Abusive Material: A Critical Reflection of Its
Effectiveness. Journal of Sexual Aggression. 16 (2), 223-235.
Essex, D. (2009). From Deleting Online Predators to Educating Internet Users. Young Adult Library Services. 7 (3), 36-45.
Fish, E. (2009). Is Internet Censorship Compatible With Democracy. Asia-Pacific
Journal on Human Rights & The Law. 10 (2), 43-96.
Giles, J.. (2011). Piracy Bill Walks the Plank. New Scientist. 212 (2841), 28.
Greengard, S. (2010). Censored!. Communications of the ACM. 53 (7), 16-18.
Greengard, S. (2012). Law & Disorder. Communications of the ACM. 55 (1), 23-25.
Morozov, E. (2011). Dictatorship.com. New Scientist. 209 (2802), 30-31.
Nantai, S.M. & Cockerline, G. (2010). Internet Filtering in Schools: Protection or Censorship?. Journal of Cirriculum & Pedagogy. 7 (2), 51-53.
Ozkan, H. & Arikan, A. (2009). Internet Censorship in Turkey: University Stuents'
Opinions. World Journal on Educational Technology. 1 (1), 46-56.
Palfrey, J. (2010). Four Phases of Internet Regulation. Social Research. 77 (3), 981-
Peace, A. (2003). Balancing Free Speech & Censorship. Communications of the ACM.
46 (11), 105-109.
Penny, L. (2011). More Sex Education, Please, and Less Censorship. New Statesman.
140 (5075), 15.
Penny, L. (2011). Rise of the Digital Natives. Nation. 293 (18), 20-22.
Roberts, M. (2010). China's Media Censorship. International Debates. 8 (4), 17.
Rosen, J. (2012). The Right to Be Forgotten. Atlantic Monthly. 310 (1), 60.
Smith, R. (2010). Does China Have the Right to Censor Google's Internet Search
Results?. International Debates. 8 (4), 2.
Talbot, D. (2009). Dissent Made Safer. Technology Review. 112 (3), 60-65.
Thompson, N. (2010). China & The Internet. International Debates. 8 (43), 3