RC Question :: Option Elimination
On September 19, 2006, a military-led coup in Thailand overthrew the democratically elected government headed by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Thailand is not unfamiliar with such upheavals. There have been seventeen coups in the past sixty years. This time, however, Internet users noticed a marked increase in the number of Web sites that were not accessible, including several sites critical of the military coup. A year earlier in Nepal, the king shut down the Internet along with international telephone lines and cellular communication networks when he seized power from the parliament and prime minister. In Bahrain, during the run-up to the fall 2006 election, the government chose to block access to a number of key opposition sites. These events are part of a growing global trend. Claiming control of the Internet has become an essential element in any government strategy to rein in dissent – the twenty-first century parallel to taking over television and radio stations.
In contrast to these exceptional events, the constant blocking of a swath of the Internet has become part of the everyday political and cultural reality of many states. A growing number of countries, including South Korea and Pakistan, are blocking Web sites that are perceived as a threat to national security.
Notwithstanding the wide range of topics filtered around the world, there are essentially three motives or rationales for Internet filtering: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Accordingly, most of the topics subject to filtering fall under one of three thematic headings: political, social, and security. A fourth theme – Internet tools – encompasses the networking tools and applications that allow the sharing of information relating to the first three themes.
Protecting intellectual property rights is another important driver of Internet content regulation, particularly in Western Europe and North America. However, in the forty countries that were tested in 2006, this is not a major objective of filtering.
On one extreme is Saudi Arabia, which heavily censors social content. While there is also substantial political filtering carried out in Saudi Arabia, it is done with less scope and depth. On the other fringe are Syria and China, focusing much more of their extensive filtering on political topics. Myanmar and Vietnam are also notable for their primary focus on political issues, which in the case of Vietnam contradicts the stated reason for filtering the Internet. Iran stands out for its pervasive filtering of both political and social material.
Filtering directed at political opposition to the ruling government is a common type of blocking that spans many countries. Politically motivated filtering is characteristic of authoritarian and repressive regimes. The list of countries that engage in substantial political blocking includes Bahrain, China, Libya, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Thailand and Ethiopia are the most recent additions to this group of countries that filter Web sites associated with political opposition groups. Yet in other countries with an authoritarian bent, such as Russia and Algeria, we have not uncovered filtering of the Internet.
The perceived threat to national security is a common rationale used for blocking content. Internet filtering that targets the Web sites of insurgents, extremists, terrorists, and other threats generally garners wide public support. This is best typified by South Korea where pro-North Korean sites are blocked, or by India where militant and extremist sites associated with groups that foment domestic conflict are censored. In Pakistan, Web sites devoted to the Balochi independence movement are blocked.
Qs. According to the passage, what is the difference between Internet filtering in Thailand and that in Bahrain?
a) In the former, Internet content was filtered to manage the perception about the change in regime whereas in the latter, Internet content was filtered to further the government’s political motives.
b) In the former, Internet content was filtered to prevent dissemination of unpopular opinion regarding the new regime whereas in the latter, Internet content was filtered with a political motive.