Censorship of the Internet and Mass Media

Censorship of the cyberspace and Mass MediaThe conversation regarding illegalizeship amongst states, center nations or countries in this context, has been a highly contested and conflicted debate for oer a century. According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, censoring is sup stuffion of tongue, public communication, or a nonher(prenominal) tuition, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,politically incorrector inconvenient as headstrong by regime authorities or by community consensus (Merriam-Webster). Nearly all states, even those that atomic number 18 considered to be naturally free states, practice many forms of both direct and substantiative censorship. Censorship is usually rationalized to protect from weighty, obscene, and/or negative information from conception released and exposed to certain audiences or the general public. It is important to be far-famed that self-censorship, where one or more than individuals cens or their own personal discourses and environments, is not the type of censorship that pertains to this essay as it will focalisation on official acts of censorship. In her book, Censorship In the States, historian Mary E. take defines official acts of censorship as official actions by a government or governing body that oblige access to certain information to their audience (Hull, 1). For the purposes of this essay, the united States of America will be the main focus when discussing censorship and its effects and implications. If given the absolute power and ability, the censorship of the cyberspace and mass media in America could produce detrimental effects amongst near all aspects of society. Therefore, it is of ut more or less(prenominal) importance that free, open, public, and un illegalize access to the lucre and medias crosswise the United States of America must repose and be protect. Technologyand change magnitude globalization have interconnected states and their citizens morethan always which has led to the world of the global citizen. Because ofthis, some governments have highly censored media inside their states asexemption of delivery communication and access to different thoughts and ideologies poses highrisks. Across the musket ball, numerous non-governmental organizations research andwork to determine the amount and ways-in-which information is censored indifferent states. Reporters Without Borders (RWB), a United Nations consultant,studies the immunity of ex instancyion and information in states and publishes theirfindings in the annual World calf love emancipation Index. The World Press emancipation Index consults andsurveys expert rightfulnessyers, sociologists, media professionals, and journalists onpluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislativeframework, transp arncy, infrastructure, and abuses within their country. The2018 report that surveyed one hundred and eighty states concluded that No rway,Sweden, and the Nether trim downs are the most free and/or least censored stateswhile Syria, Eritrea, and North Korea are currently the most censored and leastfree states (RWB, 2018). For reference, Canada is the eighteenth most freestate, the United Kingdom is the fortieth most free, and the United States falls as the forty-fifth most free state. The United States fell two placesfrom 2017 to 2018 which discount be attributed to the actions of chairperson Donald J.Trump and his administration. Trump notoriously state the press an enemy ofthe American people, which has triggered attacks against journalists and theircredibility using the double-faced and often erroneous term bogus word of honorworthiness (RWB,2018). Reports and research equivalent this help transparently determine the freedom ofspeech, press, and information across the globe from a nonbiased perspective. Censorship in The United States of AmericaCensorship inthe United State of America is a highly contr oversial root word given how prominentand institutional the liberty of freedom of speech and the press is engrainedinto legislature and society. The graduation Amendment to The Constitution states, Congressshall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof or ab freeging the freedom of speech, or of the press orthe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pray the Governmentfor a redress of grievances. (U.S. Const. amend. I). The freedom of speech inAmerica is not absolute as it does not protect hate speech or obscenity,meaning that strongly offensive speech or speech that promotes hateful actsbased on bias can legally be censored as they are not protected forms of speech(Hull, 3). The First Amendment can be attributed as the foundation for thepopular American catchword and saying, land of the free. This nationalisticsaying has permeated American society as many Americans pride themselves on thethought of America being thee land of freedom and justice despite numerousranking and studies pointing otherwise (RWB, 2018). Since the creation and implementation of the First Amendment, numerouslaws and rulings have been instituted and repealed in order to restrict thefreedom of speech and press. Notably, the Sedition and Espionage Acts, imposedunder President Wilson in 1917, declared it illegal and treasonous for citizensto speak against the United States government, armament, and flag. This act essay to bend the First Amendment, however, it was repealed in 1919 as itclearly violated the freedom of speech and press clause. In 1971, The Pentagon Papers, officially titledReport of the function ofthe Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, were classifiedUnited States of America military and government documents that were leaked.The Pentagon Papers detailed the battle of the United States in theVietnam state of war from 1945-1967 (Hull, 27). These documents revealed that the UnitedStates had gone against l egislation and made official decisions without the aidor input from Congress, which is legally required. They were leaked, accordingto Hull, because critics charged that thegovernment resorted to excessive smorgasbord of documents in order toconceal activity from the public, whereas the government maintained that it was acting in the interests of national security (Hull, 29). This leak was interpretedto the Supreme royal court of the United States and was ruled legal as the SupremeCourt determined that the general public has the right to these documentsdespite the governments try to censor the press. Although the First Amendmenthas been tested numerous times, it stands generally true that individuals inthe United States of America are entitled to freedom of speech and press solong as it does not fuel the occurrence of permit crimes. Internet Censorship in the United States Within the past few decades, the rules and guidelines set by the First Amendment have made the waters murkie r than ever when discussing censorship and the media. The internet has made newsworthiness and media more accessible than ever which enhances the effects, debatably both positive and negative, censorship can have. Given the capitalistic personality of the internet, major new bloods occupy a massive section of the internet and tend to circulate only chosen proper(postnominal) media and news stories that hit their agenda, this is known as corporate censorship. Project Censored, a news source that publishes important news and media that was not reported by the mainstream mass media, work to eliminate corporate censorship as they gather up it as a blockade towards democracy and free press. (Jensen, 2018). Although corporate censorship is highly hassleatic, it is protected by the First Amendment as companies and individuals have the right to broadcast what they see as fit. The Internet Must Remain Free from CensorshipInternet Censorsand BlockersInthe United States, the First Amen dment protects against and prohibits majorityof internet censorship involvement from the federal, state, and localgovernments. However, private companies have more leeway in their actions tocensor content, particularly in regards to public spaces. There tends to be a ingest crossover between these private companies and the state as the governmentor government officials often support and fund companies whose interest alignwith theirs. This is a classic incident of corruption with the governmentfinding a loophole to travel by their rightful bounds. Internet censorship istypically performed by content blockers and removers that are created,installed, and programmed to block all content deemed obscene or unfitting. Themajor problem of these programs is determining what content is and is notokaya process that can be slowly corrupted. In the words of Mary E. Hull, What is indecent in one persons mind may be decentin anothers thus, disregarding of the censors motive, the result of censo ringis the denial of anothers freedom to choose. (Hull, 2). Thisexact problem was exacerbated in 1997 in a Virginia library that had installeda blocking program on its public computers. The intention of the program was toblock and censor sexually unadorned content from minors, which is perfectlylegal and the decision was supported by the subject field Law Center for Childrenand Families (Hull, 35). However, this program, advertently or not, alsoblocked the American Association of University Women website and an AIDSwebsite which is extremely problematic because this blocker is now constrainingaccess and information from the public. The center of this controversy is notthe use of a blocker, as individuals should have the right to knowingly censorcontent in private, but the fact that a publically funded device was censoring becharm content. Given this incident occurred in 1997, it is un credibly thatthe censoring of those two specific websites was directly intentional, however,it r emains unclear as numerous biases could lead a company to explicitly censormore than originally intended. Thisincident, albeit small, maneuvers how detrimental censorship of the internet can beand wherefore the internet needs to remain publically uncensored. Itis extremely important that the First Amendment be rigorously upheld in theUnited States of America as it is the major piece of legislation that prohibitsextreme censorship. For this reason, totalitarian control of the internet hasnot been observed in the United States but other countries can be used asexamples of this. The pluralitys Republic of China is notorious for their strictcensorship of the internet, curiously social media, and suppression of newsand information. According to the 2018 World PressFreedom Index, China is the one hundred and seventy- 6th (fourth worst) least freestates as President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party implement extremecensorship and watch on the citizens (RWB, 2018). China has been tr ulyinnovative to censor the internet by creating different apps and networkingsites that resemble sites like Facebook and peep (Walker & Orttung, 77).Chinas censored version of Twitter, called Sina Weibo, has a massive member basewith over six hundred million users. Keyto their censorship is strict criminal punishments for advertizing thoughts,ideologies, and ideas that go against China and the Communist Party (Walker& Orttung, 78). China also restricts close all forms of media by requiringnewspapers to register with the government and all television is broadcasted bygovernment-run China Central Television. The extreme censorship in China hastaken the voices away from the people and subjected them to only the thoughtsand rhetoric provided by the government. This is extremely dangerous as nearlyall forms of dissidence, personal expression, thought exploration, education,and legitimate news are deprived from the people so that they unintentionallysurrender themselves to the country. In order for democracy and freedom toremain in the United States, it is absolutely essential that the internet andsocial media remain free from government interaction. The impressiveness of societal Media Thegrowing accessibility and prevalence of the internet in day by day lives has allowedfor social medias to play pivotal roles in individuals personal lives,politics, and society as a whole. Both Facebook and Twitter have become majorsources of news, information, and misinformation in America. Both of thesesites have become hubs for people to share their personal opinions in reactionto the news, especially politics. Politics in America has become more polarizedthan ever which has increased greatly increased tensions and amplified partyaffiliations from the option of Barack H. Obama in 2008 to the election ofDonald J. Trump in 2016. Misinformation,especially political misinformation, has become more and more more prevalent andbelieved through platforms like Facebook and Twitter . Misinformation can be partly attributed to motivated cogitate, theillusion of objectivity, and partisan-driven motivated reasoning as theyexplain why voters cling to certain ideologies, misperceptions, and corrections(Thorson, 463 Berinsky, 7 Nyhan & Reifler). In short, motivated reasoningis a phenomenon where one will support a desired expiration if they canrationalize it (Kunda,482-483). A study researching the presence anddiffusions on Twitter during the 2012 election showed that rumors were sharedby polarized accounts that created echo chambers defined by politicalhomophily that were based on ideological attitudes not truth and be (Shin, Jian, Driscoll, & Bar, 1227). Social media sites harbor misinformation because they arehighly polarized, therefore misinformation is more likely to become believedvia motivated reasoning if it aligns with ones belief ashes or partyalliance. Anextremely detrimental piece of misinformation began in 1988 when AndrewWakefield produce a report that incorrectly liked the Measles-Mumps-Rubellavaccine to autism. This link has been extensively discredited yet stillpersists and has caused numerous recent outbreaks of measles. In a studyconducted by Mark R. Joslyn and Steven M. Sylvester, they found the individualsbelief in this invention became politicized and lead to faulty governance andpolicies that allowed outbreaks to occur (Joslyn & Sylvester, 17). Althoughthis report was false, it is important for it to be noted that social media hasenough power to influence politics and government. Social media also becomes anaccessible intermediate that exposes its users to current news, political beliefs,and ideologies. Numerous studies show that social media becomes an environmentwhere individuals can find like-minded individuals and share their thoughts,however, those like factors also nourish misinformation. As previously mentioned,Donald J. Trump coined the term fake news when referring to news that is notfavorable toward him or his administration, regardless if the news is actuallytrue or false. This term is extremely problematic because it discounts journalistsproviding truthful information while diminishing that problem that legitimatelyfalse news poses. False news tends to spread faster and quicker, however,eventually, it tends to reach a very much smaller audience. In 2016, a tenth ofconservative Republicans accounted for consuming cardinal percent of fakenews ( vexationy, 2018). In order to tackle this problem, Facebook has implant afact-checking service into flagged articles so the consumer knows it ismisinformation before they choose to share it (Hunt). counterfeit news and fake newsare both very touchable problems as legitimate journalism is of value and should beprotected.Censorship is a dangerous tool that should be used in a very selective manner as it can deprive individuals of necessary information. In the United States of America, it is incredibly important that the First Amendment is upheld as it provides all citizens with a voice and platform to both share and receive thoughts, information, news, and ideologies. Free speech and free press absolutely has its downsides as dangerous misinformation can easily be shared and believed but the benefits of freedom of speech and press are so much greater. Protection of freedom of the internet is essential in order for the United States to remain a democratic, liberated, and just nation. References Berinsky, A. J. (2015). Rumors and Health Care Reform Experiments inPolitical Misinformation. British Journal of PoliticalScience,47(02), 241-262. inside10.1017/s0007123415000186Censorship Def. 1. (2018,April 25). In The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved April 29, 2018,from https//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship2018 World Press Freedom Index(Rep.).(2018, April 25). Retrieved May 3, 2018, from Reporters Without Borders ForFreedom Information website https//rsf.org/en/ranking/2018Hull, M. (1999). Censorshipin Am erica A Reference Handbook. Retrieved May 1, 2018, fromhttp//web.b.ebscohost.com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/emailprotectedessionmgr120&vid=0&format=EB&lpid=lp_I&rid=0Jensen, C. (n.d.). Censored word Stories. Retrieved May 3, 2018, from http//projectcensored.org/about-us/Joslyn, M. R., &Sylvester, S. M. (2017). The Determinants and Consequences of Accurate BeliefsAbout childishness Vaccinations. American Politics Research.inside10.1177/153267317745342Kunda, Z. (1990). The case formotivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,108(3), 480-498.doi10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.480Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J.(November 30, 2016). Do People Actually Learn From Fact-Checking?Evidence froma longitudinal study during the 2014 campaign. University of Exeter.Retrieved April 17, 2018.Shin, J., Jian, L., Driscoll,K., & Bar, F. (2016). Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 USpresidential election Rumor diffusion and correction. New Media &Society,19(8), 1214-1235. doi10.1177/1461444816 634054Thorson, E. (2015). BeliefEchoes The Persistent make of Corrected Misinformation. PoliticalCommunication,33(3), 460-480. doi10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187United States Constitution, Amendment I (1787).Walker, C., & Orttung, R.W. (2014). Breaking the News The Role of State-Run Media. Journal ofDemocracy,25(1), 71-85. doi10.1353/jod.2014.0015