Controlling Internet Access

While there are limits to free speech in the U.S., it is certainly the case that the U.S. has fewer restrictions on freedom of expression than most of the other countries in the world. Many other countries regulate access to "objectionable" materials, with the "objectional" content varying by country and culture. For example, it is illegal in Germany to publish neo-Nazi materials. France has few restrictions on what can be published, but French law does restrict how it is published—it must be in French. Saudi Arabia censors incoming communications to remove criticisms of the government, criticisms of Islam, references to religions other than Islam, and references to pigs, pork, alcohol, or sex. Singapore seeks to regulate all publication by legislating what private sector publishers can and cannot publish (e.g., pornography, hate literature, and anti-government propoganda). China controls communication by restricting the right to publish to the government. These are just a few of many examples around the world. Different cultures thus restrict freedom of expression in different ways and to differing degrees, according to what they deem objectionable.

The global nature of the Internet creates a problem for countries who find the content of the Internet to be objectionable: whereas such countries have jurisdiction over and can regulate publication within their country, they have no jurisdiction over publication that originates outside of their country. Since most of the objectionable material on the Internet originates outside of their countries, these countries cannot prevent the publication of such material. Iinstead, they attempt to control their peoples' ability to access the objectionable materials. Some of the approaches different countries have used include:

Censorship is thus just one of several options available to countries with concerns about cultural degradation resulting from the Internet

This page was written by Joel Adams.
© 2001 Calvin College, All Rights Reserved