The fast development of internet platforms has led to the gradual but steady migration of various human activities in the online sphere, including the ability to communicate with different people and express one’s opinion. Due to its novelty, the interaction between people is still not properly regulated by governments worldwide. However, numerous states, internet providers, and website owners have already considered and implemented certain laws that would restrict online activities. Although online communications are still relatively free of censorship, both in the form of legal restrictions or online platform policies, more people argue that interactions on the internet should be regulated. Yet, they are opposed by those who assert that the ability to express any opinion on the internet should not be restricted.
The former group pinpoints that the internet allows many individuals to be anonymous or interact with people they will never meet. It implies that people are less responsible for their actions or words than during face-to-face communication. This, in turn, leads to the thrive of harmful behavior and attitudes that many users are not protected from. Yet, the censorship opponents state that any governmental or private interference would violate the freedom of speech principle and, thus, is not legal. Moreover, this group warns against granting control over the flow of information to a limited number of people. It is explained by the fact that the latter may use this power to fulfill private interests. In this regard, censorship opponents conclude that the negative consequences of free speech violation and granting excessive control to some people outweigh the damaging impact of harmful behavior.
Overall, in my opinion, both sides of the argument express valuable insights regarding the internet censorship issue. Indeed, limiting free speech has both positive as well as negative outcomes. Still, I support those who argue in favor of censorship as I think that the principle of free speech that was formulated several centuries ago a priori assumed accountability for one’s actions. As this principle does not apply to the online sphere and, thus, many people become hurt, there should be some action to restore justice. For instance, one of my friends was subject to bullying, which greatly affected her mental health, but nobody was responsible for that. Although there can be power abuse by censors, it is always possible to develop instruments that would allow limiting their control.