Patrolling the High Seas

"What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. "~Sigmund Freud (1933)

That was censorship in the 1930’s era. As societal values evolve, as State priorities change, and as the media of information advance, the rationale, extent and the form of censorship also revolutionize. NOW, in the digital age where information is accessed conveniently through cyberspace, internet filtration is the contemporary mode of expurgation.

Indeed, akin to the High Seas, cyberspace is not defined by any territorial boundaries. From a practical point of view, no one community's standards can govern the type of speech allowable on the Internet. Thus, governments all over the world are confronted with the ultimate challenge on to how to police and exercise jurisdiction over Internet activities that serve as avenues for the perpetration of crimes (such as terrorism, pornography, and cybercrimes) and that raze the fundamental values and norms of society. In fact, most of these crimes are executed outside of one's country and in an intricate modus operandi wherein seizure of its perpetrators would be arduous, if not impracticable. Hence, unless such predicament is constructively addressed through the creation of treaties and international covenants (such as WWW founder Dr. Vince Cerf’s proposal on creating international agreements on what is acceptable network behavior or not), the state's traditional exercise of police power may yield to the use of the Information Superhighway.

On the other side of the spectrum, some are of the view that regulation of cyberspace would only not be impracticable/impossible but also unconstitutional.

In terms of practicality, the fact that the Web is almost entirely privately owned is a major obstacle to such control. Hence, a different governance structure made up of multiple stakeholders (consisting of the owners, the customers, the government and the public) and not solely of the government is ideal.

In terms of constitutionality, as the Internet is a contemporary form of mass media that squarely falls within the framework of constitutionally protected speech, its regulation may run afoul against our present Bill of Rights, which provides:

"Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances."

Such stance can find solace in the Ashcroft vs. ACLU case, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit enjoining the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) because the law "likely" violated the free-speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

On a personal note, the solution is not censorship but education of the users. The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.[1]

Equipped with IT education, anyone-not just the press, the lawyers, the policy makers--can use the Cyberspace to hold media and political institutions accountable and to guarantee that the truth is revealed.

Footnote:

[1] Commager, Henry Steele

Sources:
1. “Internet Freedom of Speech” < http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ip_speech.htm>
2.Fonseca, P.; “Cerf sees government control of Internet failing” < http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN1420689320071114?sp=true>
3. Soriano, J.; “Internet Decency Regulation vs. Free Speech(The US Case of Ashcroft vs. ACLU) < http://www.arellanolaw.net/publish/itlj-issue2_02.html>
4. Toral, J.; “Is Internet Censorship Inevitable?” < http://philippineinternetreview.blogspot.com/search?q=censorship>
5. Wikipedia; “Internet Censorship” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship>