The Necessity and Consequences of Internet Censorship Laws in Upholding Public Decency (Research Paper Sample)

The Necessity and Consequences of Internet Censorship Laws in Upholding Public Decency The internet has connected people around the world at an unprecedented scale, yet the need to maintain free expression against calls to conform to social norms has quickly risen to the forefront. Governments globally have taken to censorship laws, brought about through the internet, to legislate content that they see as detrimental to the public good. But it’s important that these types of laws be reserved for only the most vulnerable members of society, and that the potential for overreach, citizen suppression, and encroachment on civil liberties be kept in mind anytime such laws are put in place. This helps protect us, especially children, from harmful content. Content that shows explicit material, hate speech or graphic violence on those platforms can have a corrosive impact on social norms and mental health. The rise of non-consensual pornography, also known as “revenge porn,” is an example that has serious repercussions for individuals, including emotional distress and loss of reputation (Pew Research Center). Laws prohibiting this kind of content, such as the United States’ No Human Trafficking on Our Devices Act of 2022, show that targeted censorship can protect individual dignity. Likewise, blanket restrictions on child exploitation materials are universally justified because they protect minors from harm and break up illegal networks. As legal scholar Cass Sunstein insists, “Well-crafted regulations” are necessary to keep the internet from turning into a “breeding ground for harm” (Sunstein 45). Thus, censorship laws serve as protective measures against content that threatens public decency and safety. Broad censorship, however, risks violating basic freedoms. Decency laws are often used by governments as a weapon to suppress political dissent or minority voices. For instance, China’s “Great Firewall” censorship prevents access not only to obscene content but also to discussions on democracy and human rights, with that censorship justified as necessary to maintain social stability (United Nations). This conflation of “indecency” with dissent illustrates how censorship can serve as a mechanism of authoritarian control. In democracies, the vague definitions of “obscenity” or “hate speech” can lead to arbitrary enforcement. In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was struck down after being used to arrest citizens for innocuous posts on social media (American Civil Liberties Union). These cases illustrate the danger of giving governments unrestrained authority to define and enforce “decency.” This is where a balanced approach to internet censorship needs to prioritize transparency, judicial oversight, and public participation. First, laws shou...