[ Kookmin Review - Monday, March 19, 2012 ]

Chilling Effect on Freedom of Expression in SNS

  • 12.03.27 / 이영선
Date 2012-03-27 Hit 19188

After emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China, with the exception of the researchers authorized by the nation, no other people could own books except books about the Qin dynasty. Save for books on agriculture, medicine, and books on fortune telling, any documents including rebellious or seditious ideas which could arouse criticism of the emperor were sure to be confiscated and burned. When people criticized the royal authority, glorified the past and tried to disturb the order, his or her family and their closest kin were annihilated. And if the officials did not inflict severe punishment on such citizens, officials were treated in the same way.

Even at the present, there are some recent actions going on within the world’s largest democracy, reminding people of the antiquated law of the ancient kingdom. India’s governing authorities found an easier and a more effective way to patrol people’s ideologies and beliefs. Demanding pre-censorship from online social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter, the authorities made a formal request that a human being, not a machine, censor posts on their websites. They also asked to block posts containing criticism and inflammatory remarks about their government. Having yielded to government pressure, Facebook and Google which once facilitated the spread of the Arab Spring, now agreed to exercise censorship on content expressing an anti-government viewpoint.

Compared to India, S. Korea seems to have a flexible approach to withholding content. According to the Korea Broadcasting Commission, both the government and web users may have the right to participate in censorship of pernicious information and thoughts. This state-run organization carries out post censorship, examining whether the contents are offensive, unethical, or a threat to national security. It set up a new review committee which assumes responsibility for revision of online posts. Once this committee judges some contents problematic, it first requests the deletion of the post, and if the demand is not met, Internet service providers can block the offending SNS account.

Reliability of the censorship process and the way contents are censored are questionable, however. Among the 42,137 online posts demanded for deletion during January 2011 to September 2011, 39,262 posts or nearly 94% were in fact deleted. It clearly shows that people treat the government’s request as an ‘order,’ not a recommendation, or advice. Moreover, only the ten members of the review committee impose legal control on postings of around the 5.5 million and 4.5 million people using Twitter and Facebook respectively in S. Korea without giving them the opportunity to have a fair hearing.

In a related new development, Twitter announced last January 2012 that it will authorize certain countries to exercise censorship on posts within their countries’ website. Due to this policy, the company can block access to a certain account and all information both pernicious and salutary can be censored, if there is a legitimate request from the government. And it is far cry from Twitter’s announcement only a year ago that it guarantees the right of free expression, declaring it will never delete individuals’ posts. Whatever the reason is for changing its mind, two things are unquestionable: surveillance of private individuals is becoming easier and Twitter can find a larger market all over the world whether they respect freedom of speech or not.

Now, with the exception of authorized information and thoughts, no others remain to be seen to public. It is evident that now speech is becoming limited, even in cyberspace.

Kim Ji-Su(Editor-in-chief)

Violette@kookmin.ac.kr

[ Kookmin Review - Monday, March 19, 2012 ]

Chilling Effect on Freedom of Expression in SNS

Date 2012-03-27 Hit 19188

After emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China, with the exception of the researchers authorized by the nation, no other people could own books except books about the Qin dynasty. Save for books on agriculture, medicine, and books on fortune telling, any documents including rebellious or seditious ideas which could arouse criticism of the emperor were sure to be confiscated and burned. When people criticized the royal authority, glorified the past and tried to disturb the order, his or her family and their closest kin were annihilated. And if the officials did not inflict severe punishment on such citizens, officials were treated in the same way.

Even at the present, there are some recent actions going on within the world’s largest democracy, reminding people of the antiquated law of the ancient kingdom. India’s governing authorities found an easier and a more effective way to patrol people’s ideologies and beliefs. Demanding pre-censorship from online social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter, the authorities made a formal request that a human being, not a machine, censor posts on their websites. They also asked to block posts containing criticism and inflammatory remarks about their government. Having yielded to government pressure, Facebook and Google which once facilitated the spread of the Arab Spring, now agreed to exercise censorship on content expressing an anti-government viewpoint.

Compared to India, S. Korea seems to have a flexible approach to withholding content. According to the Korea Broadcasting Commission, both the government and web users may have the right to participate in censorship of pernicious information and thoughts. This state-run organization carries out post censorship, examining whether the contents are offensive, unethical, or a threat to national security. It set up a new review committee which assumes responsibility for revision of online posts. Once this committee judges some contents problematic, it first requests the deletion of the post, and if the demand is not met, Internet service providers can block the offending SNS account.

Reliability of the censorship process and the way contents are censored are questionable, however. Among the 42,137 online posts demanded for deletion during January 2011 to September 2011, 39,262 posts or nearly 94% were in fact deleted. It clearly shows that people treat the government’s request as an ‘order,’ not a recommendation, or advice. Moreover, only the ten members of the review committee impose legal control on postings of around the 5.5 million and 4.5 million people using Twitter and Facebook respectively in S. Korea without giving them the opportunity to have a fair hearing.

In a related new development, Twitter announced last January 2012 that it will authorize certain countries to exercise censorship on posts within their countries’ website. Due to this policy, the company can block access to a certain account and all information both pernicious and salutary can be censored, if there is a legitimate request from the government. And it is far cry from Twitter’s announcement only a year ago that it guarantees the right of free expression, declaring it will never delete individuals’ posts. Whatever the reason is for changing its mind, two things are unquestionable: surveillance of private individuals is becoming easier and Twitter can find a larger market all over the world whether they respect freedom of speech or not.

Now, with the exception of authorized information and thoughts, no others remain to be seen to public. It is evident that now speech is becoming limited, even in cyberspace.

Kim Ji-Su(Editor-in-chief)

Violette@kookmin.ac.kr

TOP