I believe it is obvious that there is undesirable content on the internet. Examples that most people can agree on are pedophilia and sexual violence. However, there are different responses from some groups in society in regards to less definitive topics. These include pornography, and hate speech. Other topics have strong opponents and strong defenders, as Simpson points out. Topics like same sex marriage, abortion, and information about sexuality are seen in different light by different people. Simpson further argues that in the Australian context, groups that push for government backed filtering are strong religious groups. He fears that behavior that Christian groups disapprove of would be filtered out when other groups see such action as censorship.
It is my opinion that any type of filtering would constitute censorship. Yet, I see the need for libraries in particular to have filtering software in use. In regards to government, I believe there are many valid concerns about the validity and objectivity of filtering. Still, I am inclined to err on the side of protection and allow a possibly overreaching filter to avoid content that is damaging to society.
I guess, in part this is because Simpson’s article did not speak much to me. Is it because I am a Christian? Maybe. The things he pointed out as possible collateral damage in the effort to filter harmful content are not things I am interested in defending. However, I do see the problem in one limited group having the power to filter whatever they deem wrong. Any deontological approach will have a much more dominant approach as the group “in power” will impose its values on a population that may or may not agree with the decisions. Yet, deontology would approve of upholding such values regardless of opposition. What I see on the other side of this is that humanists also hold a deontological approach where tolerance is among the highest values. I don’t think different frameworks would necessarily give different answers as much as they would offer a way to interpret what is the prioritized value.
A feminist could say we need to care about those that are different and need a way to express themselves online by not filtering iffy content. On the other hand a feminist could say we need to care for children and adolescents by limiting the availability of certain content in public computers.
So as an American, what do you think is the higher value? Liberty, or protection?
So can you give an example of how you would ethically decide what kind of content is “damaging” to society and deserves to be filtered?
Certainly, because my ethics are based primarily on Biblical principles, my discretion would not match the humanistic perspective of the general of society today. My standard for deciding what is good is if it expresses love towards God and if it expresses love towards my neighbor. Neither abortion, nor hate speech would be viable options. Yet, because abortion is something that is legalized in the US, and frankly happens everywhere, I believe it is worth offering information online that explains to women the value of the person they are carrying in their womb, and the gruesomeness and consequences of abortion. On the other hand, hate speech doesn’t have, to me, much of a defense.