LAST summer, I happened to visit Salt Lake City, the capital of the US state of Utah. While I was walking along the street toward the Temple Square, which is a tourist attraction in the heart of the city, I was politely approached by two young boys, probably high school students, asking for a two-minute talk with me. Sadly enough for them, I declined their request and was about to leave until I heard one of them questioning, “Do you want to know more about Mormonism?” My answer was quick and straightforward: “If I want to know something, I would just ‘google' it.” Once I got to the nearby hotel, I was in a hurry to find out more about Mormonism, a growing branch of Christianity that is at the centre of people's life in the city. While I was browsing the Internet in order to find certain “critical” essays about the Mormonism, a nice phrase surfaced my computer screen redirecting me to the “administrator” for further information about how to access this type of information. In simple words, the access to such type of information is denied. No one can imagine that in a country like the United States, methodically known as the castle of liberty, access to any online content is denied based on a religious viewpoint. However, this seems to be the norm in almost all countries. I remember this story while I was walking around the corridors of the Riyadh International Book Fair which is welcoming visitors nowadays in Riyadh. I happened to visit a famous Moroccan publisher displaying several cultural and literary books. My hand fumbled under a shelf stuffed with books when I suddenly found two incredible titles that attracted my attention. I enquired about the price and was surprised that the book salesperson began to persuade me not to buy them because they are banned. Under my insistence to get both titles, he was eager to put them in a colored bag invisible from the outside. While leaving the Fair, I chatted with a long-life friend of mine who, after being briefed about the incident at the Moroccan publisher, was suspicious about the effectiveness of censorship in the age of Internet where free flow of information has become an undeniable fact of life. He believes that, at this time, censorship is counterproductive and this should be replaced by other effective techniques that do not cripple creativity and, at the same time, do not allow for the harmful materials to find way to our own young generation. Access to information is normally censored based on political, social and moral considerations. In many countries, it is widely believed that people's access to information may encourage them to revolt and rebel against the local authorities, at least from a political perspective. In South Korea, for example, authorities there are keen to block access to several Internet websites that may carry propaganda praising the North Korean regime. A French judge ruled it illegal for Yahoo to sell Nazis memorabilia over the web in France and suggested a filtering system to sort out things when selling to the public. There is a prevalent attitude amongst intellectuals and free speech advocates that censorship is synonymous with oppression and the lack of free speech. For that reason, censorship is seen as a clear violation of the principles of human rights which put an emphasis on one's right to access information and to share it with others without invading his or her privacy. To that end, many anti-censorship activists have opposed all forms of censorship indifferently. Although no one would argue about the critical role that censorship plays in crippling creativity, we need to make it clear that certain hostile, sometimes illegal, practices are conducted under the freedom of speech mantra. The Internet, just an example, has given the unheard individuals the chance to voice their concerns easily and straightforwardly. But, by the same token, it is a messy world that is full of evil-intentioned extortionists and abusers who would like to carry out their heinous acts without being brought to justice. There is no contradiction, at the end, between the right to freedom of speech and the right of the people, particularly the vulnerable ones such as minors, to be protected from the harmful content in the age of great technological advancements. Blocking access to a degrading content should not distort us into thinking that one's right to access information is being jeopardized. The offense caused by such content, whether it is obscenity or messages of hate, is far greater in its scope and damage. For these reasons, it is safe to say that not all forms of censorship are deemed inappropriate. While it is clear that banning a literary or artistic work because of a controversial phrase is a stark violation of the author's right to express his idea, it is also unacceptable to have a large online source, for example, that distributes obscenity and indecency causing harm to millions of minors worldwide. The former should be strenuously advocated while the latter should, in the very sense of the word, be criminalized. – SG The author can be reached at: [email protected] __
