WEEK11 Part1 Censorship: Who should censor?

     Censorship is a strongly debated topic, whilst some states used it to control the content their citizens can access, limiting their rights and freedoms, some institutions argue that their censorship protects its networks users. One example are libraries or educational institutions, especially schools censor certain websites such as gaming website, adult websites and possibly others. Some are blocked with the argument that they should not be accessed by children and for certain websites it’s the distraction that is a factor.

    At our school initially YouTube was blocked which teachers very quickly recognized as a problem as our school was digitally proactive and incorporated online resources into everyday class. Multiple other websites were taken off the ban, however the school office was reluctant to remove the ban completely. Teachers and staff were provided with a separate internet connection so that they were not required to circumvent any security measures. However, when more intricate tasks and projects were assigned in higher grades it required further loopholes, which incentivized the school to provide a VPN for older years. Some more details were added to the system, such as a guest network which still banned most of the original websites, the school providing access to more scientific search engines and incentivizing the students to use them, in-class supervision of screens to avoid lack of work etc.

    It took some time and mistakes, however an environment and system were created that allowed the digital day-to-day at school to function well. There were of course students who used the VPN to access Netflix or YouTube during class, questioning the efficiency of the system, however it was finally argued that a high school student is independent enough to realize whether she/or he should be paying attention or procrastinating. I think generally the system worked well, ensuring that younger students did not have access to certain media and that the ban on websites for high school students was logical and not disruptive. I believe certain tweaks could have been made to reduce redundant VPN use and ensure that the ones distracted by social media could concentrate on school, however they are responsible for their own education, thus maybe its not necessary. The way this functioning environment was created was through a trial and error system and by involving all parties in the discussion, parents, staff, teachers and students included. This system can be used in an adapted version for other educational, research or business facilities, however cannot be applied generally for the whole state, without limiting its users freedom. I think in an environment such as at work or at school it should not be that much of a discussion whether there should or should not be censorship, but rather what mode of censorship should be applied. In this case a censorship provides a more focused environment, which should be somewhat determined by the employer or directors.

    In the case of a state or a larger community a discussion between all parties is a lot more difficult and limiting peoples access in their own time would mean limiting their freedoms and would therefore go against their human rights. The discussion what should be censored and for whom is important, as certain information should be redacted from children’s internet access or the worksite, however to a certain extent it is not the states decision but rather the parents, caregivers, or employers, who can individually tend to the needs of the situation. However, the state should provide more information and education on the topic, but ensuring but not interfering with an individual’s freedom. Maybe it is the responsibility of the internet providers to provide different packages such as a data pack for children, limiting websites or for employee’s, restricting access to work-relevant activities.