The Effect of New Media Censorship on the World - NMI White Paper

Countries that are democratically driven practice freedom of speech. This practice is important to the constant development of ideas in forums in global communities (Eber-Schmid 2009). There are laws in United States and Europe which protects the system of allowing freedom of speech. In most countries, where importance is placed on religion or the monarchy or both, freedom of speech is deemed as an insult and a blasphemy. Where censorship is concerned, it is to reign in the people from venting on the more sensitive issues. The advancement in the internet has affected the government censorship in the online media. A recent example would be the Yemennet’s restriction on a blog hosting site, affecting bloggers due to the popularity of the blog hosting website (Eber-Schmid 2009). As mentioned earlier, blogs and websites play a role in helping dissatisfied citizens in voicing out their opinions. Online media is on the rise especially in the West, drastically changing business methods besides being a tool for communication from crucial information such as news to lighter topics on dating rituals (Loewenstein 2008). A UCI study shows that readers have diverse thoughts on the roles of a blog. Some readers found it necessary to make insightful contributions as past research resulted in readers expecting blogs to be frequently updated besides having meaningful contents (Science Blog 2002). I think that the online media plays a huge role in the political and social context. People rely on the internet media to conduct business practices, contribute politically and socially. Censorship on the internet is simply unreachable. If the government results to blocking websites especially popular ones, there are higher chances of provoking the public. Most people find comfort in practicing freedom of speech through the internet, because they are free to remain anonymous at all times. To me, I believe that the government's stand in censoring blogs is a rather imprudent attempt; even the reasons are stifling the Opposition, or causing unrest within the nation. They seem hypocritical when they do so, as the ruling government now, were the ones advocating free speech since the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Article 10(1) state that freedom of speech (Saravanamuttu n.d) is given to all citizens as long as no controversial issues are brought up. I think that citizens are allowed to speak their minds out or voice out of their disapproval on an issue but they should never involve race, religion and culture into their speeches because it may cause racial riots.