In an age where majority of the world’s communications and information are being transmitted via the internet, there is, as a ripple effect, much controversy over which content becomes available to viewers. This is obvious of course due to the exponential effect a single source on the internet could have on the billions of viewers all over the world. As such, who decides what is allowed, where is it allowed and where is it not?
Let us take Google for example. Recently they refused to bann certain videos from youtube in the defense of free speech. However earlier, Google banned a video trailer within 8 countries due to the ensuing violence of Muslim protestors. This situation brings to light thousands of similar scenarios. How do internet firms deal with public dispute and how do companies based in free-speech countries deal with governments that wish to prohibit free speech?
What about back home? American sites are known for supporting of free speech but most community users prohibit hate langauge and obscenity. Most firms follow the laws of host states for the sake of avoiding offence, in return, the risk of censorship is ignored. So in the end: are these laws beneficial?
Referenced Sources:
- http://www.economist.com/node/21564198
- Image 1: http://libya360.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/live-timeline-of-global-anti-us-riots/
- Image 2: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/09/27/the-downside-of-being-a-google-executive/