argumentative essay about internet censorship

• Skip to content

Harvard Law & Policy Review

Online Censorship Is Unavoidable—So How Can We Improve It?

By Ben Horton*

A few weeks ago, Professors Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods ignited controversy by suggesting in the Atlantic that China was right and America was wrong about internet censorship and surveillance. This seemingly contrarian stance rubbed people the wrong way , especially given reports that China’s online censorship delayed their response to COVID-19 and that Chinese agents have actively disseminated disinformation about the virus—and then attempted to suppress reports revealing their disinformation campaign .

Except the professors’ critics seem to have missed the point of their essay. Goldsmith and Woods said China was right that the internet inevitably would be censored and surveilled, not that China’s methods were normatively appealing.

Even discounting existing state surveillance and censorship on the internet in the United States, private surveillance and censorship is ubiquitous. And, notwithstanding our intuitions, most people want an internet that is subject to ubiquitous censorship—that is, “content moderation.”

Putting aside illegal content (child pornography, snuff films, etc.), most consumers do not want to be inundated with what Sarah Jeong has dubbed “ the internet of garbage .” They do not want to be harassed, bullied, threatened, or spammed on the internet. And in the midst of a global pandemic, they want to ensure disinformation is kept to a minimum. They want to limit harmful speech.

Part of our problem is we still think of speech burdens in a binary, on-off way. But especially online, the question is not whether you can find content, it is how hard it will be to be find and how much it will be amplified .

The question is not if there will be censorship and surveillance, [1] the question is who gets to do it, and how it is done. Right now a relatively small group of private actors make not only the substantive decisions about content on the internet, they decide the process that drives those decisions and how information flows through their networks. They wield enormous power , and are almost completely unaccountable to the public.

So, what are our options?

Option 1: Stay the Course

First, the United States could continue to shield tech companies from most tort-based liability for content posted on their platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , maintain an expansive view of the First Amendment, and not substantively regulate tech companies.

Supporters of the current system largely admit that ubiquitous content moderation is good, so long as it is private. They hold that a system of private speech regulation provides a market incentive for platforms to reach a Goldilocks-zone of content moderation : Enough harmful speech is blocked that it is possible to maintain deliberative communication amid the noise, but not so much that deliberative communication is also blocked. Consumers have a choice, and services that fail to moderate will either fail or be consigned to the dark corners of the internet .

But how real is that choice? Alphabet owns the two most popular websites in the world. Facebook (through its eponymous service and Instagram), Twitter, and Reddit collectively dominate U.S. social media . Over the past twenty years who has rivaled them? MySpace? Snapchat? Yahoo!? Tumblr? Even including these rivals, American consumers have had two significant options for their search engines and four or five social media sites. And, at least in part, that lack of choice is due to the inaction by antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice when Google bought YouTube and when Facebook acquired Instagram . In a monopolistic environment consumers can try to campaign for changes to private companies’ policies, but their effectiveness might rely on some of the substantive regulations discussed below.

As Evelyn Douek has argued, these platforms are increasingly cooperative in their moderation decision-making , making consumer choice even more illusory. YouTube’s policies on terrorism-related content are not significantly different than Facebook’s or Twitter’s because they all belong to the same private group that develops those standards. Facebook’s new Oversight Board is probably a step in the right direction, but what happens if it becomes the de facto decision-maker for social media standards generally?

Finally, the market theory is contingent on the assumption that people choose their networks based on the ability of the network to curate information. But the profit incentive of social media companies is to increase our engagement—which might mean pushing harmful content on users , or at least enabling that sort of thing ( until they’re caught ). The negative effects of this content might be exaggerated , but without greater transparency we just don’t know.

Aside from the harms of disinformation, staying the course has the additional drawback of eliminating the United States from the global conversation about internet governance. As Microsoft President Brad Smith mentioned in a recent interview , in the future, tech companies may simply adapt their products to the regulations of the European Union and other Western democracies that lack stringent First Amendment or Section 230 protections against government involvement in online speech. We already see this to some extent with the NetzDG law in Germany, which, if nothing else, is offering us some useful transparency on content moderation.

Or tech companies themselves might simply decide how public health crises are managed .

Either way, the United States government, for better or worse, will simply not have much of a say in what the internet looks like.

Option 2: Content-Based Regulations

For constitutional reasons, the approach of regulating speech based on its content is closed off to the United States. There is a lively academic debate about the status of lies and hate speech under the First Amendment. But absent a political revolution, it will remain an academic debate. The Supreme Court has said, in an 8-1 opinion , it will not open up new “uncovered” zones of speech. Content-based regulations of harmful speech will continue to be subject to strict scrutiny, and they will continue to be struck down.

In the U.S. context, at least for the foreseeable future, content-based censorship will continue to be ubiquitous and limited to private actors. That does not mean we need to leave the speech moderating apparatus entirely to the private sector.

Option 3: Torts, Competition, Process, and Friction

Contrary to cyber-libertarians, the options available are not limited to “censorship” or no regulation at all. We have other tools at our disposal. The key is to focus on content-neutral regulations, especially those that govern the flow of information rather than regulations that criminalize certain content.

As a threshold matter, these policies do not have to—and likely will not—take the form of flat bans and mandates. They might be conditions attached to liability immunities or tax incentives, and they can—and should—distinguish between different types of online services. Of course, companies have been lobbied, and should be lobbied, to make these changes on their own; I am arguing that there is some role for direct government regulation in these realms.

First, we could reform Section 230. While supporters maintain that Section 230 is necessary to ensure that platforms can engage in decent moderation without fear of liability , detractors argue that a well-crafted alternative could still shield sites that engage in good-faith moderation without shielding sites that are designed to facilitate human trafficking , for instance. And regardless of where you stand on the 230 debate, given bipartisan support for both SESTA – FOSTA and the delayed “ EARN IT Act ,” 230 as we know it is unlikely to survive. If we want sensible intermediary liability protection, and not a patchwork of exceptions that probably make the internet less safe, the 230-or-nothing stance is increasingly politically untenable.

Second, we can advocate for regulations that promote competition, creating a market where consumers have real choices and their choices make a difference. This need not be the traditional “breaking up” of companies given the beneficial network effects consumers find in centralized services and the possible aggravation of harm that a balkanized internet could bring . Pro-competition policy could start with blocking the sale of startups to Facebook and Google . It could include the imposition of substantive requirements, like an information fiduciary responsibility or interoperability requirement on organizations with a certain share of the market. Any regulations, however, need to be sensitive to the needs of non-profits with large user bases and low revenues .

Third, and more controversially, we can require more transparent processes in content moderation. A number of organizations have released and advocated for the “ Santa Clara Principles .” These include, at a minimum, publishing the number of posts and accounts taken down organized by the category of violation, providing notice to users whose accounts or posts are taken down, and instituting some kind of appeal process. If content-based moderation decisions are largely going to be done by private actors, their legitimacy relies on being transparent and understandable to the public. Even if changes are brought about by private pressure, we cannot collectively criticize and improve on secret processes .

Finally, and most controversially, maybe we can impose content-neutral, friction-creating regulations that force consumers to be more deliberate in sharing and consuming information. For instance, WhatsApp recently limited its forwarding function so that any messages that come from a chain of more than five people must be forwarded one chat at a time. This type of rule is not content-based; it applies to speech based on its virality, not the “topic, idea or message” communicated. Disclosure requirements—revealing, for example, whether or not a human is speaking —might also increase friction and deliberation. And some regulations of social media’s “frictionless” design might be allowable under the First Amendment.

These regulations avoid the hard epistemological questions and constitutional hurdles of defining harmful speech. They regulate the flow of information regardless of its content instead of worrying about speech concerning a particular topic. Furthermore, they ban no speech—deliberate communication is unaffected.

There are pros and cons to every policy mentioned, with administrability challenges and constitutional issues . But to reach a substantive discussion of the realistic possibilities for regulation in the U.S. context, the conversation needs to move beyond the false binary of “censorship versus free speech.”

* Ben Horton is a rising 3L at Harvard Law School and an Online Editor for HLPR.

[1] I am not talking about the problems of surveillance presented by innovations like the Ring doorbell , or facial recognition . I am referring to the level of surveillance necessary to ensure that speech is successfully moderated on platforms—being able to tie punishments to certain accounts, for example. That overlaps with the problems of online behavioral manipulation and surveillance capitalism, which I am not addressing in this post.

Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 08 May 2020
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Md Nurul Momen 4  

309 Accesses

Freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and impart information without restrictions by state authorities.

Introduction

Internet is regarded as an important issue that shapes free expression in today’s volatile nature of human rights world (Momen 2020 ). In the digital age, authoritarian governments in the world always attempt to undermine political and social movement through the complete shutdown of the Internet or providing partial access to it. It is also found that the restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are through surveillance and monitoring the online activities. In response to any kind of political and social movement, authoritarian governments across the border occasionally shut down many websites, along with the arrest of several anti-government bloggers and political activists. However, under the international legal instruments, for instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), denial of the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ariffin, L. J. (2012). Rais backs Dr M call for curbs to Internet freedom . https://www.malaysia-today.net/2012/06/05/rais-backs-dr-m-call-for-curbs-to-internet-freedom/ . Accessed 10 June 2018.

Arnaudo, D., Alva, A., Wood, P., & Whittington, J. (2013). Political and economic implications of authoritarian control of the internet. In J. Butts & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Critical infrastructure protection VII (IFIP AICT) (Vol. 417, pp. 3–19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Cristiano, F. (2019). Internet access as human right: A dystopian critique from the occupied Palestinian territory. In G. Blouin-Genest, M. C. Doran, & S. Paquerot (Eds.), Human rights as battlefields (Human rights interventions). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91770-2_12 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21 (3), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0190 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Freedom House. (2019). Freedom on the Net . Washington DC/New York, Retrieved from https://www.freedomonthenet.org/countries-in-detail

Hill, D. T. (2002). East Timor and the Internet: Global political leverage in/on Indonesia. Indonesia, 73 , 25–51.

Kee, J. S. (2012). Bad laws won’t stop cyber crime . https://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/28/bad-laws-stop-cyber-crime/?doing_wp_cron . Accessed 10 June 2019.

Momen, M. N. (2020). Myth and reality of freedom of expression on the Internet. International Journal of Public Administration, 43 (3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1628055 .

Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global Internet governance. International Affairs, 91 (1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12189 .

Randall, J. (1996). Of cracks and crackdown: Five translations of recent Internet postings. Indonesia, 62 , 37–51.

Rodan, G. (1998). The Internet and political control in Singapore. Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1), 63–89.

Shirokanova, A., & Silyutina, O. (2018). Internet regulation: A text-based approach to media coverage. In D. A. Alexandrov et al. (Eds.), Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS) 2018 (Communications in computer and information science (CCIS)) (Vol. 858, pp. 181–194). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_15 .

Ziccardi, G. (2013). Digital activism, internet control, transparency, censorship, surveillance and human rights: An international perspective. In Resistance, liberation technology and human rights in the digital age (Law, governance and technology series) (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md Nurul Momen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Nurul Momen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Alberta, Alberta, AB, Canada

Scott Romaniuk

University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

Manish Thapa

Nemzetkozi Tanulmanyok Intezet, Rm 503, Corvinus Univ, Inst of Intl Studies, Budapest, Hungary

Péter Marton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Momen, M.N. (2019). Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship. In: Romaniuk, S., Thapa, M., Marton, P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Received : 15 March 2018

Accepted : 29 June 2019

Published : 08 May 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society Essay

Introduction, against civil rights, ignorance and misinformation, technically impossible, standardization, works cited.

The Internet is a worldwide electronic library with virtually any kind of information hence it is the greatest and most convenient source of information at the click of a button. Of all the diverse information available in the internet, some explicit information such as pornography, racism, ethnicity, crime and war are considered unethical and against strong virtues of the society.

The negative impacts of internet have raised many concerns over freedom of access and publishing of information, leading to the need to censor internet. Although censoring of internet can help in protecting virtues and culture, it is technically impossible, prohibits propagation of knowledge and against civil rights freedom of speech and press.

Internet censorship is against freedom of expression. The United States government attempted to control internet in 1996 when they passed Communication Decency Act but the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that it is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment of the Supreme Court (Valdes Cortes Para. 7).

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the internet freedom deserves much protection as books, newspapers, magazines and even as a nude statue in a museum (Para. 1). Therefore, it is unconstitutional to censor internet because people have the inalienable rights of freedom of speech and press so long as the civil rights are protected for the interest of justice.

Since internet is the greatest source of knowledge, the censorship of internet denies people access to vital information required in order to acquire knowledge. Insufficient information in the current society will led to misinformation or ignorance that is quite unrealistic (Yee Para 4).

Misinformation and ignorance completely outweigh the negative consequences of the free internet; it is better to have options and choice on the kind of information than be ignorant and misinformed. Modern society is fighting to eliminate ignorance and misinformation that are key democratic aspects of an open society, free of deception and secrecy.

Internet censorship is a way of controlling the minds of people as they say knowledge is power hence, leaders who are in power wants to control and regulate information access by their subjects so that they can continue gain more power while the subjects become more ignorant on pertinent issues that affects their lives (Yee Para 6).

Internet has made it hard for leaders to guard selfishly the knowledge to be within their own reach thus they are making futile attempts to control the flow of information worldwide. Free access of information from the internet have significantly enabled people to gain more and more knowledge making them have informed decisions in the kind of information and challenges they face because ignorance is no longer an excuse of not making the right decision in life..

Internet information is so vast and diverse to the extent that it will be impossible to censor the information in it. Technically, due to the overwhelming data and consequent complex encryption protocols involved, plus other technical factors makes internet censorship impossible (Chapman 132). Internet protocols are designed in such a way to avoid or prevent blocking. Moreover, internet is very dynamic in that censorship will be as futile excise as chasing the wind.

The internet has no boundaries unlike laws and legislations that are specific to a given territory. The Communication Decency Act left many questions unanswered; what is decency and who will determine decency? Diverse cultures in the world have different perceptions of what is ethical or not, what is decent or not, but a censor may have a different perception of what constitutes decent or ethical.

The diversity of cultures and legislations a cross the countries makes it impossible to have a standard internet censorship. According to the Americans Civil Liberties Union, internet censorship need to be put on the hands of the individual so that they can have autonomy to decides on the information they access or publish (Para 2).

Internet censorship is a noble idea of trying to conserve our cultures and traditions, but on contrary, we also need knowledge to eliminate ignorance that seems to perpetuate in this modern society. The positive impacts of free internet access of any information, outweighs by far its negative effects in the society.

Today, a society without access to information seems be in a dark world full of ignorance and misinformation that makes people behave as if they are blind to the current world issues that directly affects them. It is our inalienable right to access and publish information and the freedom of speech and expression are the integral aspect of information.

A democratic and prosperous society is based on the access of the right information used in the making of informed decisions a better society. The freedom to access information must be fought for, otherwise; people in the power will take advantage of our innocence and deny us the right to information that is necessary to rid of the ignorance in the society.

American Civil Liberties Union. “Censorship on Internet.” ACLU. 2010. Web.

Chapman, Gary. “Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints”. 1997. Greenhaven Press . Web.

Valdes Cortes. “ Margarita. Internet Censorship around the World .” University of Chile. 2010. Web.

Yee, Danny. “Internet Censorship: an Australian Press Council Seminar.” Electronic Frontiers Australia . 2010. Web.

• Telegraph and Its Impacts in Mass Communication
• Online Persona: Ethical Implications
• Censorship on the Internet
• Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering
• Internet Should Be Free From All Government Control
• Impact of Modern Technology on Human Communication
• Google Search Engine and Yahoo Search Engine
• The LinkedIn Network and the Problem of Employment
• History of the Internet
• What Are the Causes of the Increased Lack of Internet Privacy?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 16). Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/

"Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." IvyPanda , 16 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society'. 16 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

1. IvyPanda . "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/internet-censorship/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Censorship — Pros And Cons Of Internet Censorship

Pros and Cons of Internet Censorship

• Categories: Censorship Freedom of Speech

About this sample

Words: 1338 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1338 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, works cited, moral issue, security issue.

• Coleman, B. (2010). Hello China, goodbye freedom: The implications of internet censorship for political dissent in the 21st century. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(4), 891-914.
• Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, B. C., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). The Internet trust bubble: Global values, beliefs, and practices. Oxford University Press.
• Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
• Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
• Graff, G. (2013). Should we censor the internet? Yes. Intelligence Squared US Debates. Retrieved from https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/censoring-internet
• Leets, L. (2002). Digital activism: Reclaiming the streets of cyberspace. Gazette, 64(6), 461-476.
• Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.
• Qian, H., & Wu, X. (2019). An overview of internet censorship in China. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(1), 4-15.
• Rothstein, H. (2019). The benefits of censorship. In The Ethics and Politics of Speech (pp. 57-80). Springer.
• Zuckerman, E. (2014). Internet freedom: Beyond the stalemate. Journal of Democracy, 25(1), 5-17.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 812 words

2 pages / 997 words

3 pages / 1473 words

2 pages / 923 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Censorship

"The Giver" by Lois Lowry has been a controversial book since its publication in 1993, sparking debates about censorship, freedom of expression, and the role of literature in society. In this essay, we will explore the banning [...]

It is not uncommon for certain books to spark controversies and debates over their content and appropriateness, particularly in educational settings. One such book that has faced scrutiny and even been banned in some schools is [...]

Novel 1984 is a dystopian masterpiece that explores the dangers of totalitarianism and the impact of censorship on society. Set in a future world where the government controls every aspect of people's lives, the novel serves as [...]

Books have always been seen as treasures of knowledge, culture, and our deepest expressions. But the idea of banning books has been around for a long time, sparking intense debates about freedom and censorship. Should books be [...]

Internet is the most widely used source for exchange information all over the globe. It also provides a platform in which we can express our views and talk to likeminded individuals. Moreover, it is affordable to most of the [...]

“Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” This line, delivered in George Orwell’s sinister book, 1984, exemplifies a totalitarian government censoring information, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues

Essay Samples on Internet Censorship

Stand against censorship: unveiling the dangers.

Do you feel like you are being watched on while using the Internet? This essay argues against censorship, highlighting the dangers it poses to personal freedom and democracy, and provides examples of countries like China where censorship is used to control and manipulate the public....

• Internet Censorship

Censorship Advantages and Disadvantages in the Media: My View

Censorship in the media is a controversial topic that I can't stop think about. There is a lot of debate about censorship, its advantages and disadvantages, so in this essay I will briefly explore this topic with a focus on media censorship. First of all...

• Impact of Media
• Social Media

Internet Censorship: an In-Depth Look on the Pros and Cons

Introduction In this sophisticated technology-oriented world, the Internet is considered as one of the latest inventions of science and technology. Undoubtedly, nowadays, almost every walk of human life has been influenced by the Internet. Even though the Internet has provided a plethora of resources to...

Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship: Unveiling the Web

Introduction In this paper, I will be discussing the internet, the advantages and disadvantages of internet censorship, and how we can effectively control and censor the content on the web, in particular, the problems arising due to censorship. Definitely, Internet Censorship is a hot topic...

• Internet Privacy

The Negative Impacts of Censorship on the Internet

This paper will be primarily focused on the various problems stemming from the censorship of materials found on the internet. Extending from that, it will discuss the author’s opinions on the best possible way for the regulation of posts on the internet. Finally, this paper...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online

One doesn’t have to spend much time at all on the internet to realize that censorship is present to some extent in nearly all online forums. Any platform which allows users to post original thoughts in the form of words, pictures, and videos, typically has...

• Free Speech
• Freedom of Speech

Limiting Human Independence by Abusing Censorship: List of Countries with Strict Censorship Laws

Currently, the Internet has become no substitute for people around the world. Some are delighted with the opportunities offered by the Internet, others are neutral to the world wide web, and still others see a threat to the country. For most state regimes, the unchanged...

• Types of Human Rights

Best topics on Internet Censorship

1. Stand Against Censorship: Unveiling the Dangers

2. Censorship Advantages and Disadvantages in the Media: My View

3. Internet Censorship: an In-Depth Look on the Pros and Cons

4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Censorship: Unveiling the Web

5. The Negative Impacts of Censorship on the Internet

6. Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online

7. Limiting Human Independence by Abusing Censorship: List of Countries with Strict Censorship Laws

• Pornography
• Discrimination
• Black Lives Matter
• Women's Rights
• Death Penalty
• Breastfeeding in Public

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.