Content uploaded by Irum Abbasi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Irum Abbasi on Dec 31, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
Running head: MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
Media Censorship: Freedom Versus Responsibility
*Irum Saeed Abbasi
California State University, USA
&
Laila Al-Sharqi
King AbdulAziz University, Saudi-Arabia
Authors!Note!
Correspondence!regarding!this!article!should!be!directed!to!!
irum.abbasi@gmail.com!
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
2!
Abstract
Media censorship is a global phenomenon that has foreshadowed information outlets for
centuries. A common ground for censorship is the maintenance of an orderly state, whereas, the
underlying motive is to keep public ignorant of the information that can potentially threaten
authorities. The worldwide Internet connectivity in the contemporary era allows information to
pass through within and beyond borders in minimal time; therefore, an increasing number of
media consumers depend on the Internet for a wide variety of information. Historically, the
access to news has not been this easy; the press in most of Europe in the 18th century was under
the draconian reins of censorship, which gradually abated by the 19th century due to public
demand. However, autocratic and heavily centralized governments still openly or subtly employ
censorship as a tool to silence government opposition. To combat information coup, tech-savvy
journalists and independent reporters channel information through social media, blogs, and news
websites. The governments survive by using stringent Internet surveillance apparatus that
effectively block websites and subtly filter information; hence only selective news is allowed to
penetrate the firewall. The governments also hunt down citizens and journalists accessing
disallowed websites to create a ubiquitous atmosphere of fear, harassment, and persecution. The
role of media in society is not limited to bringing information to public; therefore, it is crucial
that media does not capitalize on selling meaningless sensation that can potentially harm people,
sects, races, and religions. This paper will focus on information coup through media censorship,
and the responsibility media is laden with to cultivate tolerance and responsibility in the public at
large.
Keywords: First Amendment, free media, internet surveillance, self-censorship
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
3!
Media Censorship: Freedom Versus Responsibility
Censorship is used to officially control and suppress any expression that can potentially
jeopardize the order of the state. Historically, censorship has been used to monitor public morals,
to control public awareness, and to silence opposition. Socrates was one of the first victims of
censorship who was sentenced to drink poison for his acknowledgment of unorthodox divinities
in 399 BC. The origin of official censorship may be traced back to Rome where, in 443 BC, the
office of censor was first established. In 300 AD, China introduced its first censorship law
(Newth, 2010). Traditionally, government censors examine newspapers, magazines, books, news
broadcasts, and movies – usually before release – to redact questionable content (Bennett &
Naim, 2015). Anti-censorship advocates chant slogans against the curtailment of freedom of
expression, freedom of speech, and contamination of information. Dictatorships and struggling
democracies disguise media censorship as a tool for maintaining law and order; their real motive,
however, is to maintain public ignorance. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States,
rallied in favor of an independent and free press.
In 1807 in a letter to Thomas Seymour, Jefferson stated:
I have lent myself willingly as the subject of a great experiment which was to prove that
an administration, conducting itself with integrity and common understanding cannot be
battered down, even by the falsehood of a licentious press, and consequently still less by
the press, as restrained within the legal & wholesome limits of truth. This experiment was
wanting for the world to demonstrate the falsehood of the pretext that freedom of the
press is incompatible with orderly government. (p. 368).
Konvitz (2003) also endorses the importance of the free press and notes that freedom of press is
vital to a " free government and to a society that values differences of points of view, intellectual
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
4!
and artistic ferment, originality, the cultivation of a critical faculty, and an open mind on the part
of its citizens" (p. 145).
Dictatorships use brute force to shut down uncooperative media outlets and exile,
imprison, or execute the journalists. Under the pretext of maintaining law and order, autocratic
governments ransack news and enforce censorship. Resultantly, only a minority of people living
in mature democracies can access diverse and independent sources of information. Press plays an
important part in democratization and transparency of society and also plays a vital role in the
elimination of illiteracy internationally (Newth, 2010). The most serious attacks on freedom of
expression are perpetrated by countries, which are struggling democracies, new democracies, or
non- democracies. Although, half of the world’s population lacks an independent press (Newth,
2010); the top 10 countries where the press is most restricted include Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi
Arabia, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Iran, China, Myanmar, and Cuba (Committee to Protect
Journalists, 2015). The historical beginnings of the press harken back to the newsletters that were
circulated in some parts of India as early as the 16th century (Newth, 2010). Following that,
Switzerland took the lead in the establishment of the first newspaper in 1610. This beginning
marked the start of a chain reaction and other European countries followed suit including
England (1621), France (1631), Denmark (1634), Italy (1636), Sweden (1645), and Poland
(1661). However, this rapid growth of information medium and unlimited access of citizens to all
types of information was not welcomed by the authorities. To curb free information
dissemination, the Licensing Act of 1662 was introduced in Britain that remained in the field
until after the Great Plague of 1664-1665. Moreover, in Germany, press was effectively curbed
through not only censorship but also through trade restrictions and unavailability of printing
paper. The public demand for a free press soon gained momentum, and a domino effect was
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
5!
observed in European countries. In 1766, Sweden took the lead in abolishing the censorship laws
and also passed a law that guaranteed freedom of the press, which was followed by Denmark and
Norway in 1770. In 1787, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. France followed suit and put forward the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), which included that “The free
communication of thought and opinion is one of the most precious rights of man; every citizen
may therefore speak, write and print freely" (Newth, 2010). In most western countries,
government-regulated censorship was discontinued in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries;
nevertheless, in the 19th century, colonial governments like Russia and Britain still practiced
harsh censorship over their colonies. Moreover, the Soviet Union (USSR) withheld the longest
and most extensive censorship period of the 20th century. Once the censorship was formerly
discontinued, others ways of achieving the censorship objective were devised. For instance,
freedom of expression was again restricted through legislative acts on national security,
blasphemy, libel laws, and criminal acts on obscenity. Libel laws, especially, took over the
censorship law and loosely performed the same function due to their broad interpretation. These
laws are still used for harassment and persecution of artists, journalists, and critics that
challenged concepts of national security, obscenity, and blasphemy (Newth, 2010). Herman
(n.d.) notes that censorship has not changed for 2500 years and even in mature democracies
harassment of writers and critics continue. For example, a 2006 article, co-authored by Stephen
Walt (Harvard University dean) and John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago Professor), was
severely attacked and the co-authors faced repercussions for voicing their expert views on an
issue of national importance (Herman, n.d.).
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
6!
Media Censorship During War and Conflict
Information coup through censorship is the first line of action against an imminent threat
to governmental power, such as in a revolt or rebellion. The press plays a crucial role in any
conflict; it also is the first victim of war (Newth, 2010; Soengas, 2013). To maintain public
ignorance during a rebellion or conflict, the press is censored through tactics such as suppressing
reporters and closing or taking over the news outlets. During World War I (1914–1918), the
Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited the publication of information concerning the national defense
(Day, 2001). The Act was later amended to include any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language concerning the United States government. All countries involved in the war during
World War II choked the press (Newth, 2010). Moreover, during World War II (1939–1945),
armies involved in the war also censored letters sent by soldiers and erased any information that
could potentially be used by an enemy. Even traditional symbols of hugs and kisses were
removed due to their potential of signifying a code (Day, 2001). In the modern times, the US and
British media have voluntarily agreed to self-censorship during war times. However, the British
Ministry of Information and the US Office of War Information still sponsor and direct official
news during conflicts. The US censorship authority also issues a code of wartime practices for
the American Press (Newth, 2010).
The Arab uprising of 2011 is a test case of how perseverance and dogged efforts of the
journalists and independent reporters can bypass information blockade on the Internet. During
the Arab uprising, the military authorities and the state controlled the media; resultantly, citizens
received contaminated news from government-sponsored sources. However, the media could not
be controlled effectively because the Internet in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya had already connected
people nationally and internationally. The incessant online calls for revolution fuelled the Arab
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
7!
uprising, which led to the major crowds such as those seen in Tahrir Square, in Egypt. The online
social networking not only allowed open access to information, but also facilitated freedom of
expression. When journalists and reporters were denied access to the protest locations,
anonymous citizens uploaded pictures and shared updates on social media. The images uploaded
on the social media were sometimes the only available evidence of the ongoing protests visible
to the outside world (Soengas, 2013). The Internet, thus, played a crucial role in not only
connecting the public during the initial stages of uprising, but also facilitated the flow of
information during the conflict (Soengas, 2013).
Electronic Surveillance of the Media
The Internet provides the fastest medium for delivering information and/or materials
without needing identifying information that could potentially be used for tracking. The Internet
can outperform print media, radio, and television in terms of the sheer volume of content and its
availability to almost anyone having access to the Internet (Soengas, 2013). Bennett and Naim
(2015) note that the creation of the Internet foreshadowed the demise of censorship.
Theoretically, the latest technological advancements make it hard or even impossible to restrict
the flow of information available to Internet users. Nevertheless, when journalism entered the
Internet domain, digital censorship followed with tools such as filtering, blocking, hacking, and
redirecting. The tech-savvy activists learned to disseminate information through the Internet, and
also bypassed crude methods of censorship. Nevertheless, governments caught up with
sophisticated technologies that gave them an ability to monitor online content and redirect the
flow of information. The journalists’ activities are also monitored; unruly journalists are flagged,
which is followed by their harassment, detention, and beating. Such journalists are also dragged
in legal battles, and a threat of a potential government sponsored lawsuit is used as a deterrent.
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
8!
Russia, India, Australia, Venezuela, and China are some of the countries that have legalized
electronic surveillance. The top ten countries where the Internet is most censored are North
Korea, Burma, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Syria, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Turkmenistan
(USA today, 2014). These countries limit press freedom, restrict access to public information,
fine and/or tax owners and users of media, ban programs, and withhold media licenses. A
Venezuelan editor neatly narrated the tactics of twenty-first-century censorship. These tactics
include the governments buying the newspaper and then using it as its mouthpiece, suing
reporters for defamation, eavesdropping on their communication, and ultimately broadcasting it
on the state television. Apparently, the wave of media censorship is contagious and the less
mature democracies like Hungary, Ecuador, Turkey, and Kenya are seen following the censoring
protocol of other autocratic countries (Bennett & Naim, 2015).
The information available on the Internet is censored either visibly or stealthily. The
governments that want to appear to the broader world as democracies adopt stealth censorship,
which includes tactics such as outsourcing, withholding money, acquiring annoying media, and
arranging for the transfer of unruly journalists (Bennett & Naim, 2015). It is estimated that there
are three billion Internet users out of which 22% live in China, and approximately 10% live in
the US. China is notorious for maintaining a thick firewall for blocking unacceptable content and
foreign news websites. The Chinese government uses surveillance measures and censorship
tactics that are not only subtle, but have also succeeded in convincing the public that they are not
being snooped upon. However, in Hong Kong, China allegedly uses traditional tactics to limit
the media by resorting to violence against editors and reporters, cyber attacks, and suffocating
media by withdrawing advertisements (Bennett & Naim, 2015). Apart from dictatorships, some
powerful groups also maintain control of the press and other media. In Mexico, for example,
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
9!
drug cartels intimidate the public, the government, and the media alike. Citizen journalists use
fictitious names to report the drug cartel’s activities on social media (Bennett & Naim, 2015).
Recently, a physician turned reporter was hunted down and killed because she was the
administrator of a popular citizen news hub website called ‘Valor por Tamaulipas’ (meaning
‘courage for Tamaulipas’). She was kidnapped and subsequently murdered; her killers posted her
lifeless picture on her Twitter account to intimidate others following her lead (McGahan, 2014).
Irrespective of the status of democracy or dictatorship, there seems to be no freedom of
expression and speech whenever monarchy is involved. For instance, Queen Elizabeth II is the
head of the 16 out of 53 Commonwealth states and the Supreme Governor of the Church of
England. Akin to dictatorial governments and kingdoms, journalists and the general public in the
Commonwealth countries have to be prudent while expressing their views about the Queen. To
avoid any punishment or misgivings, self-censorship is observed; moreover, stringent
mechanisms are employed that confirm that there is no element of satire directed towards the
Queen when her story is covered.
Press Freedom and Responsibility
Sturges (2015) argues that newspapers may be divided into two types: those that publish
and sell meaningless sensation and those that publish informative news and useful commentary
on crucial issues. The media, on the whole, may have an overlap of useful and sensational
information; therefore, it may be difficult to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate
content. The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the ‘state’ from restricting
freedom of speech and freedom of expression, among other freedoms. The freedom of speech
protects all types of media, irrespective of whether it publishes innocuous images or
pornography, which is a huge business with the Internet as its chief disseminating source (Day,
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
10!
2001; Sturges, 2015). With the availability of a fast pace Internet that allows anonymous access
to inappropriate websites, children and the younger generation have access to harmful material.
The promise of anonymity opens more opportunities to children to consume pornographic
content that is legally disallowed for minors. To combat the access of pornographic content
available to children, the US Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996,
which prohibited posting indecent or patently offensive content on websites that minors could
potentially access. The offenders were given a year of prison sentence along with $250,000 in
fines (Day, 2001). However, the US Supreme Court found CDA to be unconstitutional and
struck it down contending that parents have access to reasonably effective website blocking
software, which can be installed if parents want to restrict minors’ access to potentially offensive
material. Unmoved, the US Congress again proposed a bill to protect children against
inappropriate websites; as a result, the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was enacted in
2000. The CIPA requires public schools and libraries, offering Internet access to children, to
install programs that filter obscene or harmful content (Day, 2001). The CIPA is applicable only
to schools and libraries that receive discounts through programs that make certain
communication services and products more affordable, like E-rate programs (Day, 2001).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules for CIPA implementation
in 2000 and also provided updates in 2011 (FCC, 2014). According to the rules, funding for
schools and libraries is tied to their certification that confirms that they have successfully
implemented the mandated Internet safety policy. The policy includes installing protective
programs on computers, which are used by children in an effort to effectively block or filter
Internet access to images that are obscene, or involve child pornography, or are deemed harmful
to children. An amendment to a section of the US Communications Act of 1934, known as the
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
11!
Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, was signed into law in 2008. According to this law,
schools subject to the CIPA “ must provide for educating minors about appropriate online
behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat
rooms and cyber bullying awareness and response.” Thus, the CIPA now imposes two more
certification requirements, including monitoring the Internet activities of minors and also raising
minors’ awareness by educating them about appropriate online behavior (FCC, 2014).
The indiscriminate protection to media available under The First Amendment of the US
Constitution is not guaranteed across the globe; some countries demand responsibility from the
press and media. For example, Council of Europe in the Article 10 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (1950) says that the press and media are subject to duties and responsibilities
in democratic societies.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) reads as follows:
Freedom of Expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by
public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from
requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed
by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others,
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
12!
for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining
the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (p.11).
Thomas Jefferson was an avid supporter of a free press; however, he also pointed that
“… the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood...” (p. 368). There are also many
instances in which people publish derogatory remarks with the intention of bullying others.
Recently in the US, some exploited women sued the owner of a bullying website who was
sentenced to 18 years in prison for allowing and encouraging former partners to avenge their ex-
partners by posting private pictures and videos (Almasy, 2015). Although the US guarantees
freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on the First Amendment, the jury discerned
from the victims’ testimony that one person’s failure to use his right of free speech appropriately
caused others to commit suicide or suffer the agony of job loss, divorce, and mental trauma.
Another example of bullying is seen in advertisement campaigns that are designed to provoke
hatred and nativist intolerance against particular religions. The Anti-Defamation League (2014)
criticized bigoted advertisements that are displayed on city buses as “highly offensive and
inflammatory”. Unfortunately, certain groups irresponsibly use the protection guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the US Constitution to vilify other groups and religions and to incite
intolerance and hatred. Kazemek (1995) advises saving children and young adults from growing
up in an environment that is dictated by sectarian segregation and subjective morality; society, as
a whole, must foster a climate in which differing viewpoints are not only tolerated but also
explored.
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
13!
References
Almasy, S. (2015, April 4). ‘Revenge porn’ operator gets 18 years in prison. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/
Anti-Defamation League. ( 2014, May 21). ADL deplores Hitler imagery, anti-Muslim
rhetoric in latest bus ads. Retrieved from http://dc.adl.org/news/adl-deplores-hitler-
imagery-anti-muslim-rhetoric-in-latest-bus-ads/
Bennett, P., & Naim, M. (2015). 21st-century censorship. (cover story). Columbia Journalism
Review, 53(5), 22. Retrieved from
http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/21st_century_censorship.php
Committee to Protect Journalists (2015). Retrieved from
https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-most-censored-countries.php
Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human Rights and fundamental
freedoms. Retrieved from http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Day, N. (2001). Censorship or Freedom of Expression? Minneapolis, MN: Lerner
Publication Group.
Federal Communications Commission (2015). Children's Internet Protection Act. Retrieved from
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
14!
Herman (n.d.). Censorship - From Socrates and Copernicus to Galileo and the present. Retrieved
from http://www.rense.com/general70/censorshipsocrates.htm
Jefferson, T. (1803-1807) (Federal Edition). In Ford, P. L. (1904-05) (Eds.), The works of
Thomas Jefferson (Vol. 10). New York, NY: Putnam’s Sons.
Kazemek, F. E. (1995). Choice, reason, and censorship. Reading Today, pp. 2018.
Konvitz, M. R. (2003). Religion, speech, press, assembly: Fundamental
liberties of a free people. New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
McGahan, J. (2014, October 21). She tweeted against the Mexican cartels, they tweeted her
murder. Thedailybeast.com. Retrieved from
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/21/she-tweeted-against-the-mexican-
cartels-they-tweeted-her-murder.html
Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2006). The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Middle East
Policy, 13 (3), 29-87. Retrieved from
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf
MEDIA CENSORSHIP: FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY
!
15!
Newth, M. (2010). The long history of censorship. Retrieved from
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475
Soengas, X. (2013). The role of the internet and social networks in the Arab uprisings - an
alternative to official press censorship. Comunicar, 21(41), 147-155. doi:10.3916/C41-
2013-14
Sturges, P. (2015). Regulating the press: Ensuring responsibility, or road to censorship.
Retrieved from http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=613
Top 10 Internet-censored countries. (2014, February 5). USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/05/top-ten-internet-
censors/5222385/
