A short presentation outlining some of the issues presented surrounding Moral Censorship and how it affects the Internet.

2. WHAT IS MORAL CENSORSHIP? AND HOW
DOES IT RELATE TO THE INTERNET?
According to the New World Encyclopaedia: (2008)
“Moral censorship is the means by which any material that
contains what the censor deems to be of questionable
morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what
it deems to be the values behind the material and limits
access to it”. 3
When considering the vast amount of material available on the
Internet – and also that the public has created most of that
material, its no surprise that its uprising through the 1990s,
early 2000s and even now, have given rise to some important
discussions surrounding whether this digital material should
be censored… or rather, who should censor it.

3. MORAL CENSORSHIP VS POLITICAL CENSORSHIP
Political censorship (in the context of the Internet ) may refer to
the censorship of content that the Government or
organisations (ie. Internet Service Providers and various
online aggregators) deems harmful. If the Government or the
organisations attempts to censor or conceal information,
acting in its own best interest.. 19
Moral Censorship however, comes from the public. It refers to
the ethical, traditional or religious values that we keep; which
gauges what we find acceptable versus what we find
offensive. The friction surrounding Moral Censorship is that
our core beliefs, knowledge and backgrounds are incredibly
different and segregated, however most content on The
Internet is global.

4. WHY WE NEED MORAL CENSORSHIP
Moral Censorship may be necessary in the
following regards:
- Online Harassment, 7 Cyber bullying and “Trolling” 6
- Intellectual Property 2 (Combination of political and moral
censorship)
- Child users on the Internet
- Illegal pornography and cyber terrorism
- In Relation to User Privacy 11

5. Moral Censorship has a longer history than may seem, its been
around in one form or another for thousands of years. In fact,
Socrates death sentence in 399 BC via drinking poison as a
punishment for corrupting youth may be seen as a very early
form of censorship. 15
Now, With the influx of The Internet and the almost Global Ease
of access to its vast database, Censorship has taken its
controversial hold and set its sights.
And its Target?
Us.

6. MORAL CENSORSHIP IN RELATION TO PARTICIPATORY
MEDIA
There’s almost 3.5 billion Internet users (“Internet Users”, 2016) 9 - 2.5
Billion of which are on Social Media. (Chaffey, 2016). 4 Interestingly,
most Internet content is user created – so that means that Web users
are the number one target (and victim) of Moral Digital Censorship.
At the time of writing, YouTube is currently a hot topic in the Media for
adding new policies, that are being seen as “Rampant Censorship”
(Tribune, 2016). 18
These Policies relate to what it considered “Not Advertiser-Friendly” ie.
“Sexually suggestive content”, “Inappropriate language”, and
“Sensitive Subjects” (“Advertiser-friendly content guidelines”, 2016) 8
YouTube, being the number one video sharing platform on the Web,
and 3rd largest website on Earth 7, will limit the creative content of
hundreds of millions of users. They will be forced to refrain from
uploading videos containing these, and other aspects, considered
controversial.

7. POTENTIAL LIBERAL BIAS IN SOCIAL MEDIA
A 2012 Study by Pew Research Centre's Internet & American Life found a Liberal bias
within social media users –
“When it comes to SNS users, the internet users who describe their political ideology as
moderate or liberal are more likely than conservatives to use social networking sites:
74% of internet users who describe themselves as liberal use SNS and 70% of internet
users who are moderate are SNS users – that compares with 60% of conservative
internet users who are SNS users.” (Rainie & Smith, 2012)
According to the same study; Liberals are
also more likely to hide material from their
friends if they observe different political
views. 28% of Liberals have done so,
compared to 16% of Conservatives and
14% of “Moderates” (Those who possess
no strong political preference). 17

8. POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES RELATE TO MORAL IDEOLOGIES
Political ideologies are directly correlated to moral ideologies. 10
The over representation of Liberals in social media, combined with the
added likelihood of Liberals blocking alternative views, contributes to
a biased online landscape that is becoming more evident, and more
oppressive of those with Conservative views. Recently, known
Conservative Journalist, Milo Yiannopoulos published a negative
review of the new all female ‘Ghostbusters’ film – after which, many
of his Twitter followers abused one of the lead actresses (unsolicited
by Yiannopoulos), resulting in his permanent ban. 16
Its important to remember that most major SNS Sites (ie. Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube) are privately owned businesses, who want to keep
their ‘customers’ happy and loyal.

9. ‘NET NEUTRALITY’
Net Neutrality is a term coined to represent those in favour of the Internet being an
unfiltered, free space.
Its important to address the complexity of discussing Internet Censorship. Leaver,
Willson and Balnaves (2012) in their paper, ‘Transparency and the Ubiquity of
Information Filtration?’ discuss the ramifications of (personal) information being
unfiltered, in regards to businesses tracking your location or accessing your ‘cookies’
without consent. 13
Though many people may be in favour of having access to unfiltered information,
they rarely want it to go both ways, and have their information freely available.
Its also worth mentioning that although these people who are anti-censorship in their
beliefs (often titled humans rights activists, or ‘hacktivists’) may actually condone
censorship practises of extremely immoral content, ie. Child pornography, illegal
paraphernalia etc.

10. THE PEOPLE IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Depken, C (2006) in his article “Who Supports Internet Censorship” 5 makes
generalizations from GVU Centre (Georgia Institute of Technology’s College of
Computing’s) 1998 Survey) about who is in favour of Internet Censorship. 1
“It is found that those with kids, who are married, who are older, who use the internet
for religious content, who work in the public sector, and who think pornography or
privacy are the predominant issue concerning the Internet tend to favour Internet
censorship.” (Who supports Internet Censorship, 2006)
Marwick, A,E (2008) in her article “To Catch a Predator? The Myspace Moral Panic”
theorizes that there is often a fear and criticism of new technologies, especially in
regards to older people – “Technopanics” as she calls them. She also discusses that
this may be encouraged by the media, ultimately contributing the technopanics
supporting Internet Censorship. 14

11. POSSIBLE REPERCUSSIONS OF INTERNET MORAL
CENSORSHIP
• Recent YouTube regulations may affect creativity
• Condemning those with controversial views, may be sweeping the
issue under the rug
• It places limitations on learning
• It spirals
• Sheltering children may leave them unprepared
“filtering processes of the type addressed here ultimately enforce a
particular type of world view, reducing the scope for disagreement,
discussion, conflict and diversity of opinion” (Leaver, Willson, &
Balnaves, 2010) 12

12. CONCLUSION
Given the complexities of the issues regarding moral censorship,
its important to research the variables involved in such a
movement before committing to a particular ideal surrounding
it. The subject of moral censorship is a heated one, but its
also an important one to discuss at this point in time. Its also
important to consider that the Internet is a vast network of
information than can not be individualized to please everyone.
We should approach the Internet in an informed and mature
manner, and recognize it as the great information and
connection resource that it is.

13. REFERENCES (P.1)
1. (2013, September 25). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from gvu.gatech, http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/
2. Bowrey, K., & Rimmer, M. (2007). Rip, mix, burn: The politics of peer to peer and copyright law. First
Monday, 7(8), . Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/974/895
3. Censorship. (2008, April 2). New World Encyclopedia, . Retrieved 04:55, September 12, 2016 from
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Censorship&oldid=678660.
4. Chaffey, D. (2016). Global social media research summary 2016. Smart Insights: Social Media Marketing.
5. Depken II, C. A. (2007). Who supports Internet censorship? First Monday, 11(9), . Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1390/1308
6. Dewey, C. (2015, May 14). The conclusive, expert guide to saving Twitter from its trolls. Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/05/14/the-conclusive-
expert-guide-to-saving-twitter-from-its-trolls/
7. Duggan, M. (2014, October 22). Online harassment. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from Pewinternet,
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
8. Googlecom. (2016). Googlecom. Retrieved 12 September, 2016, from
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278
9. Internetlivestatscom. (2016). Internetlivestatscom. Retrieved 12 September, 2016, from
http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/
10. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (pp. 41-65, 162-179)

14. 11. Leaver, T. (2016). Seeking transparency in Locative media. Seeking Transparency in Locative Media.
Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8353400/Seeking_Transparency_in_Locative_Media
12. Leaver, T., Willson, M., & Balnaves, M. (2010). Ctrl-z.Net.Au. Retrieved September 24, 2016, from ctrl-z,
http://www.ctrl-z.net.au/journal/?slug=leaver-willson-balnaves-transparency-and-the-ubiquity-of-
information-filtration
13. Leaver, T., Willson, M., & Balnaves, M. (2012). Ctrl-z.Net.Au. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from Ctrl-Z:
New Media Philosophy, http://www.ctrl-z.net.au/journal/?slug=leaver-willson-balnaves-transparency-
and-the-ubiquity-of-information-filtration
14. Marwick, A. E. (2008). To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic. First Monday, 13(6), . Retrieved
from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2152/1966
15. Mette, N.E.W.T.H. (2010). Beaconforfreedomorg. Retrieved 12 September, 2016, from
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415 .
16. Ohlheiser, A. (2016). Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter?.
Washington Post. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/
17. Rainie, L. & Smith, A. (2012). Main findings. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved
18 September 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/12/main-findings-10/
18. Tribune, C. (2016). MintPress News. Retrieved 12 September, 2016, from
http://www.mintpressnews.com/youtube-accused-rampant-censorship/220148/
19. Villeneuve, N. (2007). The filtering matrix: Integrated mechanisms of information control and the
demarcation of borders in cyberspace. First Monday, 11(1), . Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1307/1227
20. YouTube, L. L. C. (2011). YouTube. Retrieved, 27, 2011.
REFERENCES (P.2)