Censorship of the Internet is definitely alive and well in countries where oppressive government regimes seek to control the flow of information, such as China, Uzbekistan, Cuba, and Iran. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) found that there are 125 journalists behind bars around the world as of the start of this month. That’s actually a drop of 2 from 2007, but given that 45% of imprisoned journalists are bloggers or work exclusively online it is clear that the rise of the Internet as an information source has led to a parallel rise in censorship.
在压迫性政府政权寻求控制信息流的国家(例如中国，乌兹别克斯坦，古巴和伊朗)，互联网的审查制度无疑是活得很好的。 保护记者委员会(CPJ)发现，截至本月初，全球有125名记者被关在牢里 。 与2007年相比，实际上下降了2％，但是考虑到45％的被监禁记者是博客作者或仅在网上工作，很明显，互联网作为信息源的兴起导致审查制度的同时兴起。
“Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack.”
CPJ执行董事乔尔·西蒙(Joel Simon)说：“在线新闻业已经改变了媒体格局以及我们彼此之间的交流方式。” “但是，新一代在线新闻记者的力量和影响力吸引了全世界专制政府的关注，并加速了反击。”
That’s not overly surprising. What is perhaps surprising, is cases of Internet censorship that have begun to crop up in Western nations.
这不足为奇。 令人惊讶的是，西方国家已经开始出现互联网审查案件。
We recently wrote about Australia’s censorship plans, under which the government would force ISPs to filter “objectionable material” and block access for users. That plan has met with a large deal of public criticism and multiple petitions have been created in an effort to block it.
我们最近写了有关澳大利亚的审查计划的文章 ，根据该计划 ，政府将迫使ISP过滤“令人反感的资料”并阻止用户访问。 该计划遭到了许多公众的批评，并创建了多个请愿书以阻止该计划。
Also in Australia this week, a Supreme Court judge ruled that cartoon depictions of underage sex were the same as child pornography. The judge determined that anti-child pornography laws were on the books not only there to stop abuse of real children, but to curb the creation and distribution of material, such as cartoons, that could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children.”
同样在本周的澳大利亚，一名最高法院法官裁定，未成年人性的卡通描绘与儿童色情制品相同。 法官认为，反儿童色情法律不仅存在于书本上，以防止虐待真实的儿童，而且要遏制诸如卡通片之类的材料的创作和发行，这些材料可能“助长了对确实涉及虐待儿童的材料的需求”。孩子们。”
Similarly, in the UK today this week the nonprofit, non-governmental Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added a Wikipedia page to their blacklist because of an image that depicts an underage girl in the nude. The IWF’s blacklist is used by most British ISPs to maintain decency standards for users. The page in question (potentially NSFW) is for the 1976 Scorpions album “Virgin Killer,” and includes a picture of the album’s cover, which shows a prepubescent in the nude. The IWF determined that the picture was “a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18,” and added the page their blacklist.
同样，在英国今天本周非营利性，非政府的互联网观察基金会(IWF)增加了维基百科页面到他们的黑名单，因为描绘裸体的未成年少女的形象。 大多数英国ISP都使用IWF的黑名单来维护用户的体面标准。 有问题的页面 (可能是NSFW)是针对1976年Scorpions专辑“ Virgin Killer”的，并包含专辑封面的图片，该图片显示了裸体的青春期。 IWF确定该图片为“可能是非法的18岁以下儿童的illegal亵图像”，并在页面上添加了黑名单。
The IWF eventually backed down and removed the page from their blacklist, though implied that the image might still be blocked if hosted in the UK.
IWF最终撤退了该页面并将其从其黑名单中删除，尽管这暗示着如果在英国托管该图像可能仍然会被阻止。
Some might argue that the protection of children is paramount, and if it comes at the expense of a few “perverts” not being able to ogle drawings of little girls, or (subjectivity warning) artistic nude photos, then so be it. These cases aren’t, after all, cases of journalists or bloggers being censored because they’re speaking out against a government, but rather this is censorship of decidedly “icky” content.
有人可能会认为保护儿童是最重要的，如果它是以牺牲一些“变态者”的能力为代价的，这些变态者不能使小女孩的画作显得gle肿，或者((主观性警告))艺术性的裸照，那么就这样吧。 毕竟，这些案例并不是新闻工作者或博客作者针对政府的言论而受到审查的案例，而实际上，这是对“棘手”内容的审查。
However, sometimes standing up against censorship might mean standing up for speech you don’t agree with, or even find downright reprehensible. The slippery slope argument is definitely applicable here.
但是，有时站起来反对审查制度可能意味着站起来发表您不同意的言论，甚至觉得彻头彻尾的谴责。 滑坡论点在这里绝对适用。
As Neil Gaiman reminded on his blog last week in a post that is a must-read for anyone concerned with why freedom of speech is an important right to fight for, “If you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you’ve already lost.”
正如尼尔·盖曼(Neil Gaiman)上周在其博客中提醒的那样，这对于任何关注言论自由为何是争取的重要权利的人来说都是必读的内容，“如果您不支持自己不喜欢的东西， ，当他们来找您喜欢的东西时，您已经迷路了。”
JR Raphael of PC World writes that the IWF case is particularly disturbing because it illustrates private censorship, even if only lasted a couple of days. Why should a private organization be allowed to assert “its own right, outside of the law, to determine what legally acceptable content you should or should not be allowed to see?”
PC World的JR Raphael写道， IWF案尤其令人不安，因为它说明了私人检查制度，即使只持续了几天。 为什么应允许私人组织主张“其在法律之外的权利，以确定您应该或不应该看到的法律上可接受的内容？”
Further, what these cases have in common is that they present challenges the limits of free speech. Should a drawing really ever be considered illegal? Can a photo of a nude child ever be art? What about the controversial work of famous photographers like Jock Sturges or Sally Mann, are they works of pornography or art? Should Amazon be blacklisted for including cover images of the Scorpions’ album or a Sally Mann book? Should any private organization have a say over what is decent and what you are allowed to see? Should the government?
此外，这些案例的共同之处在于，它们挑战了言论自由的局限性。 图纸真的应该被视为违法吗？ 裸体孩子的照片可以成为艺术品吗？ 著名摄影师乔克·斯特格斯(Jock Sturges)或莎莉·曼(Sally Mann)等有争议的作品又是色情作品还是艺术作品呢？ 亚马逊是否应该因为包含《蝎子》专辑或Sally Mann书的封面图像而被列入黑名单？ 任何私人组织都应该就什么是体面的以及允许您看到的内容发表意见吗？ 政府应该吗？
“These are tough questions, and there may not be any definitively correct answers. I sure don’t have them,” writes Raphael. “But there’s no doubt an important debate brewing here that’s far bigger than this one case — and everyone who uses the Internet has reason to be invested in its outcome.”
“这是一个棘手的问题，可能没有任何绝对正确的答案。 我肯定没有。”拉斐尔写道。 “但是毫无疑问，一场重要的辩论正在酝酿之中，远远超出了这种情况。每个使用互联网的人都有理由对其结果进行投资。”
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/is-online-censorship-on-the-rise/
