This keeps citizens informed and compels the government to speak frankly about what it is doing. And journalists and citizens need to be able to express their concerns to their representatives, either through writing or some other form of expression, like protests.
Media freedom is under serious threat in Europe. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia are notable examples of where the government has increased its influence over the media. And in each of these countries, democracy is backsliding. Why are some political leaders doing this?
Because it allows the government to control the narrative. When an authoritarian government puts pressure on journalists to self-censor, the government is then better able to control what information, which version of the story, the public hears.
Media that self-censors can remain out of government hands, thereby allowing the government to claim to the rest of the world that they still have a free press. But the news that people have access to is actually very distorted. With the microphone of government-friendly media in one hand and cudgel of self-censorship in the other, governments can, for instance, keep corruption scandals out of the news or, when a scapegoat is needed, apportion blame for public grievances towards groups like migrants, ethnic minorities and LGBTQI persons.
And it works. When the truth is suppressed, the lies will take hold. Stay in the loop. Truth is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and so too is balanced debate, where the public can hear different points of view, debate them, and then make up their own mind. Self-censorship is a body blow to these things. By suppressing free media through self-censorship, citizens are deprived of information vital to open, wholesome public debate, like ongoing corruption scandals or the true effect of restrictive laws.
And this makes them unable to cast an informed vote during elections. On a day-to-day level, most of us censor what we say in order to conform to social norms. Ironically, the proliferation of social media platforms actually exacerbates this. This self-censorship can be harmful to democracy. For example, if people stop searching for information on certain topics if they think the government is watching them. Internet censorship, as you can tell by now, is a complicated issue.
There is simply too much for a non-expert to understand the entirety of it. Still, you can make efforts to know the basics and the situation as it stands. Find books and articles on the subject in addition to this one and understand how it affects matters on a local level. Know who is for and against it, and understand their arguments.
The issue does not exist in a vacuum, and neither should you. Keep Yourself Up to Date. Once you make yourself aware of the nuances surrounding internet censorship, you should try to make sure that you are regularly informed about it and any legislation changes that could increase censorship.
Fortunately, watchdog groups keep a close eye out for any legislation that could result in increased censorship, and they will sound the alarm if there is a strong cause for concern.
These groups will vary by country and political leaning, but they should be easy to find in most countries. We also recommend keeping any tools and channels you have to combat censorship up to date as well.
What was safe last year might not be safe this year. For example, booting up a five-year-old program might give you a false sense of security. A quick review of your tools every few months can pay dividends on your time and well-being.
Lobby Your Government and Representatives. If you feel strongly about the issue and live in a country with a representative government, activism can go a long way towards getting the word out and perhaps getting changes to the law introduced and passed. In most cases, contact by letter or phone call is best. Online petitions are easily ignored and nearly always ineffective the signatures are often not verifiable, and representatives mostly listen to people from their electorate. Try to make your message at least somewhat unique, and make sure that you are focused and clear about what you want.
Even if you feel as though you are being ignored, your concerns will be counted in many places. If you feel your concerns fall on deaf ears, you should consider supporting someone who shares your concerns instead. About Your Privacy Online. The issues of internet censorship and privacy are inarguably intertwined and always will be.
It is difficult to censor what is private, and oppressive governments are always interested in learning about dissenters in any way they can. To do so, they will not be afraid to invade your privacy online through various methods. On your own, there is likely not much you can do to shift the societal standards of privacy and how governments view their citizens' privacy. However, you can protect yourself on an individual level by learning all you can and taking measures to protect your information.
Read the following information not only to protect your privacy but to better avoid censorship now or in the future through that protection.
Even in the least restrictive of countries, there is nothing to stop a government official or anyone on earth really from typing your name into Google or seeing what comes up, or checking to see if you are tagged in social media posts. Think about how easy it is to look up someone else online and what you can infer about them based on their posts, post history, and metadata related to online activity.
Even having one close friend in common with someone can let them see a lot of your views and what you are up to. Governments will have experts or algorithms that can track these things, and they will be able to learn more about you than you thought possible. Social media already makes it easy for everyday people to learn a great deal some would say too much. Take some time today to look for yourself online, and close down what you do not want others to know.
At the very least, it will be an eye-opening experience. If you put something online, your government can learn about it through some combination of laws, powers, etc.
The exact standards needed will vary by country, and therefore it is best to know what civil liberties you have online and what those standards are. In more autocratic regimes, the possibilities seem eerily endless. Devices in North Korea , for example, can and will save browsing history and take screenshots of open apps, allowing for officials to detect if unacceptable usage is occurring, allowing for quick reprisal against the user and likely their family.
If the government controls internet access, seeing records is not difficult for them. While they might not see precisely what you are doing online, they can see what sites you are visiting and often combine that information with other data. Effectively, it depends on the current level of government power, how willing ISPs and website operators are to cooperate with censors and a few other factors. What You Allow Others to Know. Expanding a bit upon previous points, much of what is or is not private about you online comes down to what information you make available.
A police department looking into public Facebook posts to find evidence of a crime is hardly an invasion of privacy. Any public profile or post online is just that: public. Just because it may seemingly be lost in a sea of commentary does not mean it cannot be searched out. While we are by no means saying that you should not engage online and that you shouldn't express yourself on your channels, just be aware that those channels are not usually yours.
While you might have agreed to a privacy policy that protects your information on some level, most of those policies can change over time, and they are often to protect the company whose services you are using. One general tip we have along these lines is to carefully research and read about the sites you use the most or even use a couple of times. Read the fine print, check the settings, and know if they cooperate with the government or not.
Other Important Developments. Privacy, much like online censorship, is a continually changing concept that is hard to nail down in the digital age. While we all have our own definition and an idea of what privacy looks like in the real world, the lines are much harder to draw in the digital space.
What accounts and information do you have a right to be private? Is online information allowed to be private? What reasonable expectations can you have, and on which sites?
The questions are nearly endless, and the debate continues to this day. Here are a few things you can pay attention to:. Copyright Legislation. The internet came about to its current form relatively quickly. Most governments are not known for their quick legislative reflexes when it comes to digital matters. As we have seen over the last 30 years or so, the internet is a rapidly progressing technology and can disseminate media in ways not thought possible earlier.
Many legislators honestly do not understand some of the implications of technology, resulting in a lag in proper ways to address the issue. This leads to confusion, legal grey areas, and additional problems. Legislation will naturally look different in different countries as it comes to copyright, and further still, there are differences in enforcement.
Whatever there is on paper, China is generally laxer than most Western countries, which causes some international friction. In most cases, we should also note that copyright claims online are not necessarily a form of political censorship. Texas v. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration.
The main question: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech.
United States v. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of draft cards a crime. The answer: No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified.
Bethel School District 43 v. At a school assembly of approximately high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office.
In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. The main question: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v.
Goals: Students will be able to: use examples from their knowledge and experience to support the main ideas of their oral presentation. Set Up: Part one: The homework assignment. These booths will be presented the next time the class meets.
This allows students some prep time at home. Part two: The classroom. Half of the group will set up and present their booths at a time while the other half of the group interacts with the booths and gets a chance to explore them.
Groups will switch later. When presenting their booth students are highly encouraged to be as invested in your given moment or topic of expression. This is their time and space to share whatever it is they want to share. Once everyone in the first presenting group is ready to present, open it up for minutes of exploration from booth to booth. Please remove all materials and take a seat. Just take notes for censoring later. Once students have taken a look at all of the booths, swap out and have the next group set up.
Once the group is ready to present, open for minutes of exploration from booth to booth. The work must 1 appeal to the average person's prurient shameful, morbid interest in sex; 2 depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3 taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media broadcasting, cable, and telephone may be regulated.
In its decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could require radio and television stations to air "indecent" material only during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.
Its dictionary definition is "writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire. Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence. There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent.
And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible. But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week?
These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.
Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior.
0コメント