Survey question 1: “Do you agree with censorship of the Internet?”
Yes – 40%
No – 60%
This is an issue that can be hard to view as black and white because it is so complex, and there are so many gray areas. The definition of censor it to examine in order to suppress or delete any content considered objectionable. But what type of “content” will be “considered objectionable”? This is where things start to get sticky. I can understand why 40 % of people feel that some things on the Internet should be censored because, for example, terrorists use the Internet to recruit new members and also to spread their hateful messages and propaganda, but it is still somewhat of a comfort to me that 60% of people don’t believe the Internet should be censored.
This issue was discussed in one of our readings from this semester in COM 5280: Freiburger, Tina and Crane, Jeffery S. (2008). “A Systematic Examination of Terrorist Use of the Internet.” In the International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 309-319. Retrieved from http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/tinacraneijccjan2008.htm. According to my literature review, “The authors discuss the ability of terrorist groups to utilize the Internet to more effectively perform important activities within their operation, such as recruitment, training and planning, and the distribution of their propaganda. They explain that the Internet should be considered as a social learning tool to be used by the government to counter terrorists’ accomplishments, arguing that because of the free flow and accessibility of information currently allowable on the Internet, it is unlikely that counterterrorist actions will be able to stop websites from posting materials for training and imitation, so instead of trying to remove all of these websites, counter efforts should concentrate on the monitoring of these websites. Whether the authors are in favor or opposed to the conditions of net neutrality was not discussed, but it seems as if they are in support of an indiscriminate Internet because an open Internet works in both directions; one side gives it and the other side can take it and learn from it.”
This question can impact this issue of net neutrality differently depending upon the way one views net neutrality. I believe that having the FCC, which is essentially the government, get involved within the operation of our Internet, this is turn will only enable the potential for future censorship. But there are others who feel that the government must get involved in order to ensure a non-discriminatory Internet. So when I say that No, I do not believe there should be censorship of the Internet, I am in essence communicating that I DO NOT support the implementation of net neutrality legislation. Alright, let’s now move on to the next question.
Survey question 2: “Should there be a way to outlaw some things online?”
Yes – 73%
No – 27%
After reviewing the data from the first question, these results may seem rather peculiar. A whopping 73% of people believe that some things should be outlawed of the Internet, which essentially means that some things should be prohibited by law from being put on the Internet. Again I can understand this argument in accordance with certain issues. Consider for example, child pornography; I definitely believe this should be outlawed. How about just regular pornography? I know some people feel there should be a way to outlaw cyber bullying, especially since there has been a recent spike in teen suicides as a result of their experiences with cyber bullies. And we can even bring this back to the previous discussion of Internet terrorism.
Again, this issue is not easily cut and dry; it’s extremely complex, and while I feel that there are definitely certain things that should without a doubt be outlawed, I am just hesitant to hand over this kind of power. It is clear that outlawing some things would be beneficial, but where do we draw the line? Over time as new people come into power, it is inevitable that this law would evolve. The behavior that we currently view as “cyber-bullying” could eventually come to include something far different. And what exactly do we define as “terrorism”? Does this include only international terrorism or domestic terrorism as well?
I bring this up because on April 7, 2009, a new Department of Homeland Security Domestic Terrorism Report targeted millions of Americans. According to William Jasper of the New American, “A secret 10-page Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document sent to law-enforcement agencies nationwide is stirring up a political firestorm. Entitled ‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,’ the DHS report dated April 7, sloppily (or cleverly and maliciously) demonizes millions of law-abiding Americans, conflating them with violent, criminal groups such as Neo-Nazis and ‘white supremacists’ simply because they adhere to political beliefs at variance with those of the administration. The report employs the word ‘rightwing’ 50 times, and in nearly every instance (47 times) it is in the context of ‘rightwing extremism,’ ‘rightwing extremist,’ ‘rightwing terrorist,’ or ‘rightwing terrorist and extremist.’ Tellingly, the report doesn’t bother to define any of these politically charged terms, a major dereliction of due diligence in such an important matter. It is similarly shoddy in using terms favored by left-wing extremists to describe their opponents on the right, such as ‘antigovernment,’ ‘hate-oriented,’ ‘paranoid,’ ‘dangerous,’ and ‘violent.’ The closest the DHS report comes to offering a definition is this troubling description: Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
I can absolutely, without a doubt agree that there are certain things, such as child pornography, that should be outlawed on the Internet, but where is the line drawn that stops things from becoming outlawed that by no means should be outlawed? By definition from the DHS, I would be considered a “domestic terrorist” due to the face that I am “mainly antigovernment”, because I “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”, and sometimes I even “reject government authority entirely.” Unfortunately for the DHS however, I do not believe myself to be a domestic terrorist, nor do I think that anyone who knows me in the least bit would consider me or my actions to be even close to terrorist related. If we as American citizens want to remain free, we need to keep as much control out of the governments hands as possible, and that includes the FCC.
Survey question 3: “Are you aware of the growing attempts to ‘regulate’ the Internet?”
Yes – 70%
No – 30%
From this question it would appear that yes, indeed, the majority of people are aware that attempts to regulate the Internet exist and are growing exponentially; 70 % of people in fact. What we don’t know however, is where people gather that this regulation is coming from. In my opinion, as an opponent of net neutrality; regulation is creeping up on us in the form of government intervention, but for those individuals who support net neutrality; regulation is imminent in the form of corporate control. Moving on to the last question of this survey, our celebration of people’s awareness will become short lived.
Survey question 4: “What do you think about ‘net neutrality’?”
40% - Never even heard of it before
30% - Only heard of it, but don’t know what it is
13% - Know what it is and agree with it
10% - Know what it is and disagree with it
07% - Know what it is and feel indifferent about it
According to this survey, 70% of the people who participated have no idea what net neutrality even is, while only 30% claim to know it, understand it, and have formed an opinion on it. This is pretty unfortunate considering the serious implications that this legislation will have for every American citizen. Throughout my research, I’ve read that one of the reasons for this tremendous lack of awareness is due to the complexity of net neutrality. Even after completing an entire project on it, I still would not consider myself to have an all-encompassing grasped of this issue in its entirety.
A second aspect of net neutrality which makes it difficult to understand is the fact that it is most often spoken/written about from a perspective of absolute support or absolute opposition. It is very hard to find an objective author who can explain the issue both clearly and concisely. I believe for the most part, the perspective one will take concerning net neutrality has a lot to do with their ideological views of the world. Those who are more liberal tend to be promoters of net neutrality, while individuals on the conservative end of the spectrum tend to be opposed to net neutrality.
From everything that I’ve taken away from this project, I must admit that I currently am in opposition to the net neutrality legislation. I suppose this could change if posited situations concerning the takeover of big corporations ever came to pass, and as a result they were ruining our Internet. But as of right now, I see net neutrality as a solution to a non-existent problem.
Our Internet is currently one of the freest in the world, and this is because up to this point, government has remained out of the loop. By involving government, we are setting ourselves up to have freedoms taken away from us. At this point we can’t predict how far they would take this power, or what exactly the Internet of the future, if regulated by the government might look like, but throughout our history, the older our government has gotten, the more it has tried to reach out and incorporate itself in the everyday lives of the American citizens. Net neutrality, at this present time, appears to be just another way for the government to intrude into our homes, and impact our everyday lives.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with legislative policies of net neutrality, it is imperative that every citizen in America become informed. It is a very complex issue, which often makes it difficult to fully comprehend, but I would urge everyone to take the time and at least gain a small understand of what the implications of this legislation might mean to you and your everyday life, as well as to your future, your children’s future, and even your grandchildren’s future.
Throughout the course of this semester, we looked at the levels of Internet freedom had by numerous countries all over the world. It was apparent that the countries with the most government oversight of their Internet had the least freedom, while countries with little to no government regulation, such as the United States, had the most free. This is not at all surprising. You see, freedom is not the rule, it is the exception, and American’s have come to take it for granted. Our personal freedom is something that we should cherish, and hold on to very tightly, because once it’s gone, there’s no saying how long it might take to get back.
