The Experts below are selected from a list of 318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Berlinda Nadarajan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Censorship and the Internet: a Singapore perspective
Communications of the ACM, 1996Co-Authors: Peng Hwa Ang, Berlinda NadarajanAbstract:Technology and Censorship are often seen as opposing forces in the information age. This tension is exemplified by the case of Singapore, which wants to harness new technologies for development while having Censorship controls in place. This paper looks at how Singapore is going about Censorship of the Internet. It is part of a larger study into how Singapore proposes to censor without losing the advantages of new technologies. The paper begins by noting that Censorship in Singapore is justified on historical and socio-political grounds. Both the government and the people want it, favouring caution and prevention over liberalism. In line with these desires, the Singapore government has drawn up guidelines for Censorship. In practice, however, some of these principles conflict, especially when Censorship of the Internet is attempted. The paper then looks at problems in Censorship of the Internet and examines some Censorship measures that have been attempted. The paper concludes with the observation that current thinking suggests it is almost impossible to both control information and reap the benefits of the information age. Singapore is trying nevertheless.
Peng Hwa Ang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Censorship and Content Regulation of the Internet
2010Co-Authors: Peng Hwa AngAbstract:Censorship is defined as the intervention by a third party between the free exchange of a willing sender and a willing receiver of information; typically, Censorship is repressive in that both sender and receiver do not want the intervention. Censorship of the Internet began clumsily from when it was made publicly available. Then governments were trying to reconcile the new medium with existing rules on traditional media. Since then, there have been two other overlapping and parallel waves of attempts to censor Internet content. Today’s Censorship of the Internet is more nuanced. Governments in general do not accept the argument that the Internet is difficult to censor. Among the methods used are simple denial of access to the Internet, passing punitive laws that would deter others when those who are caught are prosecuted, and using blocking technology. The most acceptable face of such Censorship would be for the protection of minors and through filtering of the Internet. Censorship of the Internet will continue to exist because of the cultural differences that exist
-
Censorship and the Internet: a Singapore perspective
Communications of the ACM, 1996Co-Authors: Peng Hwa Ang, Berlinda NadarajanAbstract:Technology and Censorship are often seen as opposing forces in the information age. This tension is exemplified by the case of Singapore, which wants to harness new technologies for development while having Censorship controls in place. This paper looks at how Singapore is going about Censorship of the Internet. It is part of a larger study into how Singapore proposes to censor without losing the advantages of new technologies. The paper begins by noting that Censorship in Singapore is justified on historical and socio-political grounds. Both the government and the people want it, favouring caution and prevention over liberalism. In line with these desires, the Singapore government has drawn up guidelines for Censorship. In practice, however, some of these principles conflict, especially when Censorship of the Internet is attempted. The paper then looks at problems in Censorship of the Internet and examines some Censorship measures that have been attempted. The paper concludes with the observation that current thinking suggests it is almost impossible to both control information and reap the benefits of the information age. Singapore is trying nevertheless.
Conrad Heilmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Two Types of Self-Censorship: Public and Private
Political Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Philip Cook, Conrad HeilmannAbstract:We develop and defend a distinction between two types of self-Censorship: public and private. First, we suggest that public self-Censorship refers to a range of individual reactions to a public Censorship regime. Second, private self-Censorship is the suppression by an agent of his or her own attitudes where a public censor is either absent or irrelevant. The distinction is derived from a descriptive approach to self-Censorship that asks: who is the censor, who is the censee, and how do they interact? We label situations in which censor and censee are different agents as public self-Censorship, and situations in which they are the same agents as private self-Censorship. We demonstrate the salience of this distinction by analysing the case of publication of Mohammed cartoons by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Our analysis reveals the presence and interaction of a number of different instances of private and public self-Censorship. While our article is primarily concerned with establishing this novel descriptive distinction between public and private self-Censorship, our analysis has important evaluative implications. We explain for instance how Jyllands-Posten was laudable as a public self-censor but not so as a private self-censor. In general, our analysis reveals that the agents and processes involved in public and private self-Censorship are substantively different, as are the agents to whom normative principles regarding Censorship should be applied. In particular, principles of free speech do not apply to the case of private self-Censorship, because while an instance of Censorship, the absence of an external censor makes the Censorship non-coercive.
-
Censorship and two types of self-Censorship
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Philip Cook, Conrad HeilmannAbstract:We propose and defend a distinction between two types of self-Censorship: public and private. In public self-Censorship, individuals restrain their expressive attitudes in response to public censors. In private self-Censorship, individuals do so in the absence of public Censorship. We argue for this distinction by introducing a general model which allows us to identify, describe, and compare a wide range of Censorship regimes. The model explicates the interaction between censors and censees and yields the distinction between two types of self-Censorship. In public self-Censorship, the censee aligns her expression of attitudes according to the public censor. In private self-Censorship, the roles of censor and censee are fullled by the same agent. The distinction has repercussions for normative analysis: principles of free speech can only be invoked in cases of public self-Censorship.
Ii Craig A. Depken - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Who supports Internet Censorship
First Monday, 2006Co-Authors: Ii Craig A. DepkenAbstract:Censorship is the moral or legislative process by which society “agrees” to limit what an individual can do, say, think, or see. Recent attempts to regulate, i.e., censor, what is viewed on the Internet have polarized the general population. Unfortunately, beyond the anecdotal, the characteristics of those who support Internet Censorship are unknown. In this study, the support for Internet Censorship is empirically analyzed using survey data. Notwithstanding the potential limitations of survey data, the results indicate the characteristics of those who tend to favor and disfavor Internet Censorship. Specifically, concerns over pornography and concerns over government regulation on the Internet are the two most polarizing elements of the relative support for Censorship, which suggests that the debate over this issue will not be easily resolved.
Philip Cook - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Two Types of Self-Censorship: Public and Private
Political Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Philip Cook, Conrad HeilmannAbstract:We develop and defend a distinction between two types of self-Censorship: public and private. First, we suggest that public self-Censorship refers to a range of individual reactions to a public Censorship regime. Second, private self-Censorship is the suppression by an agent of his or her own attitudes where a public censor is either absent or irrelevant. The distinction is derived from a descriptive approach to self-Censorship that asks: who is the censor, who is the censee, and how do they interact? We label situations in which censor and censee are different agents as public self-Censorship, and situations in which they are the same agents as private self-Censorship. We demonstrate the salience of this distinction by analysing the case of publication of Mohammed cartoons by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Our analysis reveals the presence and interaction of a number of different instances of private and public self-Censorship. While our article is primarily concerned with establishing this novel descriptive distinction between public and private self-Censorship, our analysis has important evaluative implications. We explain for instance how Jyllands-Posten was laudable as a public self-censor but not so as a private self-censor. In general, our analysis reveals that the agents and processes involved in public and private self-Censorship are substantively different, as are the agents to whom normative principles regarding Censorship should be applied. In particular, principles of free speech do not apply to the case of private self-Censorship, because while an instance of Censorship, the absence of an external censor makes the Censorship non-coercive.
-
Censorship and two types of self-Censorship
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Philip Cook, Conrad HeilmannAbstract:We propose and defend a distinction between two types of self-Censorship: public and private. In public self-Censorship, individuals restrain their expressive attitudes in response to public censors. In private self-Censorship, individuals do so in the absence of public Censorship. We argue for this distinction by introducing a general model which allows us to identify, describe, and compare a wide range of Censorship regimes. The model explicates the interaction between censors and censees and yields the distinction between two types of self-Censorship. In public self-Censorship, the censee aligns her expression of attitudes according to the public censor. In private self-Censorship, the roles of censor and censee are fullled by the same agent. The distinction has repercussions for normative analysis: principles of free speech can only be invoked in cases of public self-Censorship.
