Read our research on: Immigration & Migration | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Americans and ‘cancel culture’: where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment.

censorship research paper example

People have challenged each other’s views for much of human history . But the internet – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray .

The phrase  “cancel culture” is said to have originated  from a relatively obscure slang term – “cancel,” referring to  breaking up with someone  – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse . There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it’s a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn’t even exist .

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share – in their own words – what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse as well as emerging internet phenomena. This report focuses on American adults’ perceptions of cancel culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.S. adults from Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

This essay primarily focuses on responses to three different open-ended questions and includes a number of quotations to help illustrate themes and add nuance to the survey findings. Quotations may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. Here are the  questions used for this essay , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Who’s heard of ‘cancel culture’?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase “cancel culture” varies – sometimes widely – across demographic groups.

In September 2020, 44% of Americans had heard at least a fair amount about the phrase 'cancel culture'

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center’s survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they’ve heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define ‘cancel culture’?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about “cancel culture” were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

Conservative Republicans less likely than other partisan, ideological groups to describe 'cancel culture' as actions taken to hold others accountable

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans’ responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people’s actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture .

Does calling people out on social media represent accountability or unjust punishment?

Partisans differ over whether calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content represents accountability or punishment

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive – and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don’t deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don’t deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but just 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action generally punishes people who don’t deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor’s degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor’s degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn’t deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.)

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. As such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.

We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents’ arguments for why they held their views of calling out others, broken down as follows:

  • 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
  • 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
  • 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important
  • 8% address the differing agendas of those who call out others
  • 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

For the codes that make up each of these areas, see the Appendix .

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it’s because people are not taking the context of a person’s post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

Americans explain why they think calling out others on social media for potentially offensive posts is either holding people accountable or unjustly punishing them

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people’s answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people’s differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

Is calling out others on social media productive behavior?

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain – in their own words – that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What’s the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it’s a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment. 

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don’t like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

What Americans say about cancel culture and calling out others on social media

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who’ve heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn’t deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

  • In this analysis, “familiar with” or “aware of” the phrase cancel culture mean “have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase cancel culture.” ↩
  • Quotations in this essay may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Logo of pheelsevier

Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why

Ashwini ashokkumar.

a Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, 108 E. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712-0187, United States

Sanaz Talaifar

William t. fraser, rodrigo landabur.

b Department of Psychology, Universidad de Chile, Ignacio Carrera Pinto 1045, Nuñoa, Región Metropolitana, Chile

Michael Buhrmester

c Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, 51-53 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PE, UK

Ángel Gómez

d Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Facultad de Psicología (UNED), C/Juan del Rosal, 10, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Borja Paredes

e Department of Communication Theories and Analysis, Facultad de Ciencias de la Información (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Avenida Complutense, 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain

William B. Swann, Jr

Associated data.

As ordinary citizens increasingly moderate online forums, blogs, and their own social media feeds, a new type of censoring has emerged wherein people selectively remove opposing political viewpoints from online contexts. In three studies of behavior on putative online forums, supporters of a political cause (e.g., abortion or gun rights) preferentially censored comments that opposed their cause. The tendency to selectively censor cause-incongruent online content was amplified among people whose cause-related beliefs were deeply rooted in or “fused with” their identities. Moreover, six additional identity-related measures also amplified the selective censoring effect. Finally, selective censoring emerged even when opposing comments were inoffensive and courteous. We suggest that because online censorship enacted by moderators can skew online content consumed by millions of users, it can systematically disrupt democratic dialogue and subvert social harmony.

  • • We use a novel experimental paradigm to study censorship in online environments.
  • • People selectively censor online content that challenges their political beliefs.
  • • People block online authors of posts they disagree with.
  • • When beliefs are rooted in identity, selective censoring is amplified.
  • • Selective censoring occurred even for comments without offensive language.

1. Introduction

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections, the moderators of a large online community of Trump supporters deleted the accounts of over 2000 Trump critics. The moderators even threatened to “throw anyone over our walls who fails to behave themselves” ( Conditt, 2016 ). This phenomenon of silencing challenging voices on social media is not limited to the hundreds of thousands of designated moderators of online communities and forums; even ordinary citizens can delete comments on their own posts and report or block political opponents ( Linder, 2016 ). To study this new form of censorship, we developed a novel experimental paradigm that assessed the tendency for moderators to selectively censor (a) content that is incongruent with their political cause (a political position or principle that people strongly advocate) and (b) the authors of such incongruent content. The studies also tested whether identity-related processes amplified the selective censorship of cause-incongruent content. Further, we tested whether the identity-driven selective censoring of political opponents' posts occurs even when opponents express their views in a courteous and inoffensive manner. To set the stage for this research, we begin with a discussion of past literature on biased exposure to online content.

1.1. Biased exposure to online content: selective information-seeking and avoidance

Behavioral scientists have long noted that people create social environments that support their values and beliefs ( McPherson et al., 2001 ). People gravitate to regions, neighborhoods or occupations in which they are surrounded by individuals with similar personalities ( Rentfrow et al., 2008 ) or political ideologies ( Motyl et al., 2014 ). Once in these congruent environments, people are systematically exposed to information that aligns with their own views ( Hart et al., 2009 ; Sears and Freedman, 1967 ). In addition, people actively display biases in behavior (e.g. choice of relationship partners) and cognition (e.g. attention, recall, and interpretation of feedback) that encourage them to see more support for their beliefs than is justified by objective reality ( Garrett, 2008 ).

Parallel phenomena can occur in virtual worlds. People often find themselves in online bubbles of individuals who share political beliefs and information with each other but not with outsiders ( Adamic and Glance, 2005 ; Barberá et al., 2015 ). They also actively seek websites or online communities that support their pre-existing opinions ( Garimella and Weber, 2017 ; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009 ), and follow or connect with individuals whose opinions they endorse ( Bakshy et al., 2015 ; Brady et al., 2017 ). And when they process information that they encounter, they display confirmation biases that warp their visions of reality ( Hart et al., 2009 ; Van Bavel and Pereira, 2018 ). Some evidence also suggests that in addition to actively seeking attitude-consistent online content, people also avoid attitude-inconsistent content ( Garrett, 2009a ). Importantly, biases in information seeking are strongest for content related to political and moral issues ( Stroud, 2017 ) and are most prevalent among those who have strong views or ideologies ( Boutyline and Willer, 2017 ; Hart et al., 2009 ; Lawrence et al., 2010 ).

Although researchers have investigated biases in how people seek , consume , or avoid information in online contexts, to the best of our knowledge they have yet to examine how people might influence the content to which they and others are exposed through censorship. It is increasingly possible for individuals to censor others in online contexts by deleting others' comments on their own posts and pages ( John and Dvir-Gvirsman, 2015 ; Sibona, 2014 ). For moderators of popular social media pages and large forums, the scope of their ability to censor is multiplied as they often exercise control over content that millions view ( Matias, 2016a ; Wright, 2006 ).

Censorship is more extreme than biased information seeking because, in addition to biasing one's own online environment, censorship delimits the online content that other people are exposed to. Also, by silencing dissenters, censorship prevents them from voicing their views. And although the psychological processes underlying censorship may overlap with some of the defensive motivations producing selective information seeking ( Hart et al., 2009 ), censorship may in addition entail a hostile motivation to nullify opponents of the cause.

1.2. Censorship in offline and online environments

The majority of past studies on censorship have examined the association between political orientation and attitudes toward censorship. Whereas some studies have suggested that conservatives support censorship ( Fisher et al., 1999 ; Hense and Wright, 1992 ; Lindner and Nosek, 2009 ), others have reported evidence of censorship by people on both sides of the political spectrum ( Crawford and Pilanski, 2014 ; Suedfeld et al., 1994 ). One limitation of this work is that researchers have typically explored people's attitudes toward censorship rather than their censoring behaviors . Further, to our knowledge, no studies have systematically examined censoring behaviors in online settings.

As public pages and forums are increasingly moderated by everyday citizens ( Matias, 2016a ), the power to censor others is now widely available. For example, on the popular social media platform Reddit, almost 100,000 community moderators have the power to delete comments or entirely ban accounts associated with millions of users ( https://mods.reddithelp.com/ ). Even internet users who have no particular stature within online communities are able to moderate other people's comments on their own posts and blogs. People can “report” social media posts they find disagreeable ( John and Dvir-Gvirsman, 2015 ; Sibona, 2014 ) or simply delete or hide cause-incongruent comments on their own posts or blogs. Given that censoring in online contexts is easier (e.g., requires a single click) and may have fewer personal repercussions relative to offline contexts (e.g., more anonymity), it seems likely that online censoring will become increasingly prevalent. Here, we examine people's tendency to selectively censor content that is incongruent with a political cause they support.

1.3. Identity as a censorship amplifier

Not everyone will be equally motivated to selectively censor cause-incongruent content. For example, motivation to censor content will be particularly high when it challenges a political cause with which people's identities are strongly “fused” ( Swann Jr et al., 2012 ). For people who are strongly fused with a cause, threats to the cause will feel like threats to the self. This will induce strongly fused people to be particularly reactive to threatening content ( Gómez et al., 2011 ; Swann Jr et al., 2009 ). They may, for instance, go to great lengths to protect their group ( Swann Jr et al., 2014 ) and are even attempt to inflict serious harm on threatening outgroups ( Fredman et al., 2017 ). Therefore, we expect that strongly fused individuals would be especially apt to selectively censor incongruent content to preserve their cause against challenges. 1

Although we focused primarily on identity fusion as a potential amplifier of censorship, we also investigated several other identity-related measures that have been associated with intolerance of political opposition. The literature on self and identity broadly suggests that people's social identities relating to political groups and causes are potent predictors of action intended to advance one's group or cause (e.g., Ashokkumar et al., 2019 ; Swann Jr et al., 2012 ; Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ) and counter opponents ( Brewer, 2001 ; Fredman et al., 2017 ). In line with this reasoning, we investigated the effects of various other identity-related measures: indices of attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with other supporters of the cause. Attitude strength and moral conviction are part of people's identities because their preferences and moral values are important parts of their self-related mental representations ( McAdams, 1995 ). Past research on attitude strength has revealed that people who hold extreme views about a cause or whose views are associated with feelings of certainty and personal significance are intolerant of others with dissimilar attitudes (e.g., Singh and Ho, 2000 ; Singh and Teoh, 1999 ). Similarly, moral convictions reflect people's deeply held beliefs regarding the morality of a cause ( Skitka and Mullen, 2002 ) and is known to predict an aversion to attitudinally dissimilar others ( Skitka et al., 2005 ). Finally, we assessed participants' identification with cause supporters, since identification has been found to be a potent predictor of pro-cause action ( Thomas et al., 2016 ). Although the foregoing variables have all been associated with intolerance of outgroups and are important components of people's identities (i.e. their mental self-representations), the causal, structural, and temporal relationships between these variables have not been clearly established. For example, it is unclear whether strong moral convictions cause greater group identification or the reverse ( Van Zomeren et al., 2012 ; Zaal et al., 2017 ). Similarly, the temporal relationship between fusion with cause and group identification is not clear ( Gómez et al., 2019 ). Prior work has shown that identity fusion is associated with moralized attitudes ( Talaifar and Swann Jr, 2019 ) but the causal relationship between these variables is unclear. Nevertheless, given that these variables have been found to predict a suite of behaviors related to intolerance of political opposition, we included them as potential predictors of selective censoring.

1.4. Overview of studies

The current research had two primary goals. First, we asked whether people assigned to moderate online content would selectively censor opposition to their political causes by deleting opposing comments and banning opponents from a forum. Second, we examined whether people whose cause-related beliefs were rooted in their identities would be especially likely to selectively censor incongruent content. In all studies, we recruited participants from the United States (US). Based on past reports that biases in information consumption are stronger for political and moral issues ( Stroud, 2017 ), we focused on political causes that are deemed to have a moral component. Specifically, we chose abortion rights (Studies 1–2) and gun rights (Study 3) as the focal issues. We also selected these issues because they are highly controversial in the US to raise the likelihood that most people would have relevant opinions. In fact, many believe that over the last half century these issues determined the outcome of multiple elections in the U.S. ( Leber, c., 2016 ; Riffkin, 2015 ).

All studies used a longitudinal design in which we measured all predictors at Time 1 (T1) and censoring at Time 2 (T2). At T1, we measured participants' position on an issue (e.g., abortion rights) and their identity fusion with the corresponding cause (e.g., pro-life or pro-choice cause). In Studies 2 and 3, we also measured other prominent identity-related measures, including strength of attitudes, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters. As part of a seemingly unrelated study administered two weeks later (Time 2 or “T2”), we measured participants' censoring behavior using a novel simulation of an online forum. We sought participants' assistance in moderating the content of a putative online forum. Participants read comments and decided whether the comments needed to be retained or removed from the forum. Comments they chose to remove were considered “censored.” Each comment was systematically manipulated to be either congruent or incongruent with the participant's cause and either offensive or inoffensive. In Studies 2 and 3, we also asked participants whether the authors of the congruent and incongruent comments they read should be banned from the forum.

We operationalized selective censorship as either a preference for cause-congruent content or an intolerance of cause-incongruent content. We expected that cause supporters would selectively censor comments incongruent with their cause (Studies 1–3) and selectively ban the author of those incongruent comments (Study 2 & 3). We also expected that people whose identities were strongly aligned (“fused”) with the cause would be particularly likely to selectively censor incongruent comments (Studies 1–3) and selectively ban the authors of those comments (Study 2–3). We examined whether the effect of fusion was influenced by the presence of offensive language in the comments (Studies 1–3) and also whether the effect generalized to an array of other identity-related measures (Study 2 & 3). Further, in SOM-III we explored one potential mechanism driving the effect of fusion on selective censoring: strongly fused people's tendency to essentialize the cause. In all studies, we examined whether there were partisan differences in selective censoring (i.e. if selective censoring was stronger among pro-life vs. pro-choice supporters in Studies 1 and 2; pro-gun-rights vs. pro-gun-control supporters in Study 3), and we report any asymmetries between the two sides. For all three studies, we report all measures, manipulations, and exclusions.

2.1. Study 1 method

2.1.1. time 1 (t1), 2.1.1.1. participants.

In August 2017, we recruited 477 participants from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an appropriate source of data for our purposes given that MTurkers routinely review comments by actual website moderators ( Schmidt, 2015 ). 2 Participants first indicated their position on the issue of abortion rights (pro-choice vs. pro-life vs. neither/don't know). Thirty-five participants who reported neutral or no views on abortion rights were not allowed to proceed because a person's pre-existing position on abortion rights needs to be known in order to identify which comments are congruent vs. incongruent with their cause. We removed 32 respondents with identical IP addresses or MTurk Worker IDs to eliminate the possibility of a single respondent completing the survey twice. We excluded four participants who failed our attention check (see SOM-I). Our final T1 sample had 406 participants (49.8% female; 71.6% White; M age  = 36.06; SD age  = 11.59; 274 pro-choice and 132 pro-life participants). The higher proportion of pro-choice participants is typical in liberal-skewed online crowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk (e.g., Ashokkumar et al., 2019 ). In this and all studies, sample size was determined prior to data analysis.

2.1.1.2. Identity measures

Participants completed the seven-item verbal fusion scale (α = 0.91, 95% CI = [0.89, 0.93]) measuring fusion with their cause (e.g. “I am one with the pro-life/pro-choice position”; Gómez et al., 2011 ). They also completed a five-item measure of the mediating mechanism explored in SOM-III: essentialist beliefs relating to the cause (α = 0.91, 95% CI = [0.90, 0.93]) adapted from Bastian and Haslam (2006) ; (e.g., “There are two types of people in this world: pro-life and pro-choice”). Both constructs were rated on seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly Disagree ) to 7 ( Strongly Agree ). We standardized the fusion and essentialism scores prior to analysis. Means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations in the final sample are reported in Table 1 .

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of measures in Study 1 (N = 223).

Note . The censoring rates, ranging from 0 to 1, refer to the proportion of comments of each type (congruent, incongruent, or irrelevant) that participants censored. Fusion's effect on selective censoring is the difference between fusion's association with the censoring rates of congruent and incongruent comments. Fusion's effect was not influenced by position on abortion rights. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

Participants provided demographic information before completing the survey (see https://osf.io/4jtwk/?view_only=10627a9892464e5aa90fe92360b846ad for a full list of measures). At the end of the study, participants learned that they might be contacted again for other studies. We did not specify when or why we would re-contact them because we wanted to discourage them from associating the first session of the study with the second.

2.1.2. Time 2 (T2)

2.1.2.1. participants.

Two weeks later we re-contacted the participants regarding a seemingly unrelated “comment moderation task.” A total of 251 participants completed the second session of the study, amounting to a 38.2% attrition rate, which is comparable to previously reported attrition rates on MTurk ( Stoycheff, 2016 ). There were no differences in fusion ( t (400) = −0.19, p  = .85, d  = −0.02) between those who did vs. did not complete the second session of the study. We excluded 25 respondents with identical IP addresses or MTurk worker IDs and three participants who evaluated fewer than 50% of the comments in the comment moderation task, resulting in a final sample of 223 participants (52% female; 71.8% White; M age  = 38.36; SD age  = 11.99; 148 pro-choice and 75 pro-life participants) who completed both time points. We were unable to conduct an a priori power analysis because the lack of previous research on censoring made it difficult for us to estimate expected path coefficients, which is required for power analyses for Structural Equation Models (SEM; Muthén and Muthén, 2012 ). To give a general sense of how much power we had with the present sample size, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, which revealed that the sample had 80% power to detect a minimum effect size of f 2  = 0.04 in a multiple regression.

2.1.2.2. Comment moderation procedure

In the comment moderation task, participants read about a new blog purportedly launched with the goal of “encouraging discussion about current issues.” We informed participants that we had received complaints regarding a surge in inappropriate comments posted on the blog and that we needed their help in deleting inappropriate comments. To make sure that participants took the task seriously, we informed them that the blog's administrator would delete all comments that they flagged. Participants then read a series of 40 statements that were adapted from comments from real online blogs and forums. Of the 40 comments, 15 were pro-choice (e.g.: “I love that even though Norma couldn't herself get an abortion (because of the terrible world we live in), she fought so hard to make sure other women could.”), 15 were pro-life (e.g.: “I love that Lily didn't have an abortion even though she didn't want to be a parent. She hadn't planned a baby and wasn't ready for it, but she didn't get an abortion.”), and 10 were irrelevant to the cause (e.g.: “I still can't wrap my head around this horrific, senseless act. Sickening.”). Participants could recommend either deletion or retention of each comment. The full list of comments is available at https://osf.io/4jtwk/?view_only=10627a9892464e5aa90fe92360b846ad .

For each participant, we calculated three censoring rates corresponding to the proportion of comments that the participant deleted among (a) congruent comments (i.e., comments endorsing the participant's position on abortion rights), (b) incongruent comments (i.e., comments against the participant's position on abortion rights), and (c) irrelevant comments (i.e., comments irrelevant to abortion rights). The three censoring rates were inter-correlated (see Table 1 ), which indicates that individual differences in people's general tendency to censor were relatively stable across comments.

2.1.2.3. Post-hoc assessment of comment offensiveness

To determine whether strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent comments depended on whether the comments included offensive language, we asked five objective judges from MTurk to provide post-hoc ratings of each comment's offensiveness. Of the five judges, two were pro-choice, two were pro-life, and one was neutral (i.e., did not favor either side of the abortion debate). The judges were told that offensive comments were those that “a reasonable person would consider to be abusive, harassing, or involving hate speech or ad hominem attacks.” The inter-judge reliability across the five judges was α = 0.84. We coded each comment as offensive or inoffensive based on the judges' majority opinion (see SOM-I for more details). The offensive vs. inoffensive classification generated from the post-hoc pilot was then applied in the selective censoring analyses. 3 For each participant, we computed four censoring rates corresponding to the proportion of comments that the participant censored among comments of four categories: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent.

2.2. Study 1 results

2.2.1. did people selectively censor comments incongruent with their cause.

To test whether people censored incongruent comments at a higher rate than congruent comments, censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments were compared via a paired t -test. A significant effect emerged ( t (220) = 4.0, p  < .001, d  = 0.25). On average, people censored 25.64% ( SD  = 22.35) of the incongruent comments they read but only 20.41% ( SD  = 18.72) of the congruent comments. Later in this section, we report differences in selective censoring between pro-life and pro-choice participants.

2.2.2. Did identity fusion amplify the selectively censoring of incongruent comments?

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) for our analyses to simultaneously model fusion effects on two dependent variables: censoring rate for congruent and incongruent comments. We also conducted alternate analyses treating the difference between people's rates of censoring incongruent and congruent comments as the index of selective censoring and regressing the index over fusion (see SOM-II). Although this method feels intuitively appealing, it is not ideal because the method would not tell us whether any detected effect is driven by people's preference for congruent comments or their antagonism against incongruent comments. Past theorists have warned against conflating these two separate processes and recommend that each should be modeled separately ( Garrett, 2009a , Garrett, 2009b ; Holbert et al., 2010 ). The SEM approach allows us to simultaneously model effects on censoring rates for congruent and incongruent comments treating them as two separate variables with different variances rather than assuming them to constitute a single variable. Note however that both the methods (SEM and computing a difference index) lead us to the same conclusions.

To evaluate our hypothesis that strongly fused people would be especially likely to selectively censor incongruent comments relative to congruent comments, we tested whether the effect of fusion on censoring incongruent comments (indicated by the c 1 path in Fig. 1 ) is significantly larger than the effect of fusion on censoring congruent comments ( c 2 path). A significant difference between the two path coefficients (i.e., Δ c  =  c 1 - c 2 ) would suggest that fusion is associated with disproportionately censoring incongruent, over congruent, comments. In this and all other models, we allowed for residual covariances between the censoring rates. In all the models, we used standardized scores for the continuous predictors, but we did not standardize the censoring rates (they ranged from 0 to 1) to allow the censoring effects to be interpreted in meaningful units. We report unstandardized regression coefficients.

Fig. 1

Structural Equations Model depicting the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments (Study 1). The c 1 and c 2 paths represent the effects of fusion on censoring incongruent and congruent comments respectively. The significant difference between the two paths (i.e., Δ c ) indicates that fusion is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. The coefficients reported are unstandardized. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

Fusion was associated with censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 path; b  = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.06], p  = .04) but not with censoring congruent comments ( c 2 path; b  = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.01], p  = .38). A Wald test revealed that the difference between the two paths was statistically significant, (χ 2 (1) = 9.88, p  = .002), which is evidence for our main hypothesis that strongly fused individuals are more likely to selectively censor incongruent than congruent comments. To illustrate, participants who were strongly fused (1 SD above the mean) censored 29.56% of the incongruent comments they read but only 15.75% of the congruent comments, while those who were weakly fused (1 SD below the mean) did not censor incongruent comments (20.74%) any more than they censored congruent comments (20.37%). The significant c 1 path suggests that the effect of fusion on selective censoring is driven by strongly fused people's intolerance for incongruent comments rather than their leniency toward congruent comments.

Controlling for the censoring rate of comments irrelevant to abortion rights (to account for participants' general censoring rate and other response biases) did not alter the effect of fusion on selective censoring (χ 2 (1) = 9.88, p  = .002). The fusion effect remained robust when we controlled for participants' position on abortion rights (i.e., pro-life vs. pro-choice; χ 2 (1) = 8.33, p  = .004). Further, the fusion effect was not influenced by the participant's abortion rights position (χ 2 (1) = 1.28, p  = .26), indicating that fusion was equally associated with selective censoring among both pro-life and pro-choice participants. In SOM-III, we report exploratory analyses testing whether essentialist beliefs about people's views on abortion rights mediates the fusion effect on selective censoring.

2.2.2.1. Did offensiveness influence the effect of fusion on selectively censoring?

We asked whether the tendency for strongly fused participants to selectively censor incongruent comments depended on how offensive the comments were. As depicted in Fig. 2 , we modeled the paths from fusion to participants' censoring rates for four types of comments: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent. We allowed for residual covariances between the censoring rates.

Fig. 2

Structural Equations Model examining the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments among offensive and inoffensive comments (Study 1). Δ p and Δ q represent fusion's effects on selective censoring among offensive comments and inoffensive comments, respectively. The significant effects indicate that strongly fused people selectively censored incongruent comments whether the comments were offensive or inoffensive. See SOM-IV for path coefficients. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

We first computed the effects of fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments separately for offensive and inoffensive comments. To compute the effect of fusion on selective censoring for offensive comments, we compared fusion's effect on censoring Offensive-Incongruent (path p1 ) vs. Offensive-Congruent (path p2 ) comments. The significant difference between the two p paths (Δ p  =  p1 – p2 , b  = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.09], p  = .008) suggests that among offensive comments, strongly fused individuals selectively censored incongruent comments more than congruent comments. (Refer to SOM-IV for the path coefficients). Similarly, we computed fusion's effect on selective censoring for inoffensive comments as the difference between fusion's effect on censoring Inoffensive-Incongruent comments (path q1 ) vs. Inoffensive-Congruent comments (path q2 ). The resulting significant difference (Δ q  =  q1 – q2 ; b  =  0 .03, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.05], p  = .04) indicated that among inoffensive comments, participants censored incongruent comments more than congruent comments. In short, strongly fused individuals selectively censored incongruent comments more than congruent comments both when the comments were offensive and inoffensive.

Finally, to test whether strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent comments was stronger for offensive comments, we compared the two selective censoring effects reported above for offensive vs. inoffensive comments. The difference (Δ p – Δ q ) was non-significant (χ 2 (1) = 2.10, p  = .15), suggesting that the effect of fusion on selective censoring was independent of the offensiveness of comments. That is, strongly fused individuals selectively censored incongruent, as opposed to congruent, comments regardless of whether the content of the comments included offensive language.

2.2.3. Did selective censoring of incongruent comments depend on people's ideologies?

Using a SEM model similar to the fusion analysis, we tested whether there were differences in people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent vs. congruent comments as a function of their stance on abortion rights (i.e., whether they were pro-choice or pro-life). Participants who endorsed the pro-life position showed a stronger tendency to selectively censoring incongruent comments relative to those who endorsed the pro-choice position (χ 2 (1) = 7.36, p  = .007). Pro-life participants also reported marginally higher fusion levels than did pro-choice participants [ t (220) = 1.76, p  = .08, d  = 0.25].

2.3. Study 1 discussion

Study 1 used a novel paradigm to explore people's censoring behaviors in online settings. People tended to censor online content more if the content was incongruent, rather than congruent, with their cause, and this tendency was higher among supporters of the pro-life cause. Importantly, identity-related processes amplified selective censoring of incongruent online content for people on both sides of the abortion rights cause. Specifically, the results showed that people whose identities were strongly fused with a cause were most willing to selectively censor online content posted by their ideological opponents. Interestingly, strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor comments was driven by their intolerance for incongruent comments rather than an elevated affinity for congruent comments. Post-hoc analyses also showed that fusion's effect on selective censoring occurred regardless of whether the incongruent comments used offensive language. It is notable that strongly fused people showed a stronger selective censoring effect than weakly fused people even though they were not primed to think about their identity before reading the comments.

Study 2 attempted to replicate Study 1 in a pre-registered longitudinal study. The method was largely similar to that of Study 1. To verify the preliminary findings from Study 1's post-hoc analysis on the effects of offensiveness, Study 2 systematically manipulated comment offensiveness a priori. The comments used in the study were pretested and categorized as containing offensive vs. inoffensive content. This allowed us to more robustly probe whether the fusion effect on selective censoring was moderated by offensiveness. Further, it was not clear from Study 1 whether strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent comments would extend to censoring the authors of the comments. To test this possibility, the study tested whether strongly fused individuals would opt to ban people who repeatedly posted content that threatened their position on the cause. The hypotheses were pre-registered prior to data collection (see https://osf.io/2jvau?view_only=754165d77cbe4e69baf6b11740b1a422 ).

Finally, although we have only focused on identity fusion thus far, we wanted to test whether the effects generalize to other identity-related measures explored in the broad literature: attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters. Studies have found that these constructs predict pro-cause action and an intolerance for opposition (e.g., Singh and Ho, 2000 ; Skitka et al., 2005 ; Thomas et al., 2016 ). We examined the extent to which each of these identity-related measures predicted selective censoring.

4. Study 2 method

4.1. power analysis.

An a priori power analysis was conducted using Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the sample size required to detect the SEM models reported in Study 1. As mentioned in our pre-registration, a sample of 345 participants was required to detect the selective censoring effect computed from the mediation model explored in Study 1 (see SOM-III) with an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. In addition to replicating Study 1 effects, we wanted to test models examining the impact of the other identity-related measures (attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters) on censoring and also test a model with all identity-related measures simultaneously entered into a structural equation model. Because we had no easy way to estimate the path coefficients for these models, we estimated the required sample size by conducting a conservative power analysis using the models reported in Study 1. As mentioned in our pre-registration, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations to detect the Study 1 mediation model with a conservative alpha of 0.01 and found that we would need a sample size of 510. This conservative estimate would give us sufficient power to detect smaller effects than the ones reported in Study 1. Given the longitudinal nature of the study, we estimated that about 35% of the sample would either drop out between T1 and T2 or be excluded because of failing attention checks, and so we decided to recruit 800 participants at T1. The power analysis and exclusion criteria followed were specified in the pre-registration. Any deviations from the pre-registered plan are noted.

4.2. Comment offensiveness pretest

We wanted to systematically manipulate the offensiveness of comments. To classify comments as offensive vs. inoffensive, we conducted a pilot study on MTurk. We recruited five Mturkers who reported having neutral or no opinions about the abortion rights issue to be objective judges. We piloted 40 comments of which 20 were pro-choice and 20 were pro-life. For each position (pro-choice and pro-life), we piloted 10 comments that we believed contained offensive content and 10 that did not. The instructions provided to the objective judges were the same as in Study 1. The judges evaluated the content of each comment as either offensive or inoffensive. The inter-judge reliability across the five judges was α = 0.87. For each of the four types of comments (Offensive-Prochoice, Inoffensive-Prochoice, Offensive-Prolife, and Inoffensive-Prolife), the seven comments with the highest levels of agreement among the judges were selected for the study. At least three of the five judges agreed on the categorization of the 28 comments that were finally selected for the study (see https://osf.io/4jtwk/?view_only=10627a9892464e5aa90fe92360b846ad for the final list of comments).

4.3. Time 1 (T1)

4.3.1. participants.

A sample of 793 participants from Prolific Academic completed the first part of the study in July 2019. The method followed was largely similar to Study 1. As mentioned in the pre-registration, only participants who endorsed either the pro-choice or pro-life position were eligible for the study. This was ensured by setting a pre-screening condition on Prolific such that the study posting was visible only to participants who had previously identified as pro-choice or pro-life. To be sure that the pre-screening worked, participants' views on abortion rights were measured again in the T1 survey, and 15 participants who indicated holding neutral views on abortion were excluded. We also excluded 29 participants who failed either of two attention checks or did not complete them (see SOM-I). Our final sample at T1 had 749 participants (48% female; 69.88% White; M age  = 32.88; SD age  = 11.79; 616 pro-choice and 133 pro-life participants).

4.3.2. Identity measures

As in Study 1, participants completed the seven items of the verbal fusion scale measuring fusion with their own position on the abortion rights (either pro-choice or pro-life) on a seven-point scale (α = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.91, 0.93]). The survey also included measures of a series of identity-related measures including four facets of attitude strength such as attitude extremity (“What is your opinion about the pro-life/pro-choice position?”; 1 =  Strongly against, 9 =  Strongly favor ; Binder et al., 2009 ), attitude centrality (“To what extent does your opinion toward the pro-life/pro-choice position reflect your core values and beliefs”; Clarkson et al., 2009 ), attitude certainty (e.g., “How certain are you of your opinion about the pro-life/pro-choice position?”; 1 =  Not certain at all , 9 =  Extremely certain ; Fazio and Zanna, 1978 ) and attitude importance (e.g., “To what extent is the pro-life/pro-choice position personally important to you?”; Boninger et al., 1995 ; α = 0.91, 95% CI = [0.89, 0.92]). Attitude extremity, centrality, and certainty were measured using one item each, and attitude importance was measured using two items. Attitude centrality and attitude importance used nine-point scales (e.g., 1 =  Not at all ; 9 =  Very Much ). We also measured moral conviction (e.g., “To what extent is your position on the pro-life position a reflection of your core moral beliefs and convictions?”; Skitka and Morgan, 2014 ) using two items on a five-point scale (α = 0.86, 95% CI = [0.83, 0.88]) and identification with cause supporters (e.g. “I identify with other supporters of the prochoice position”; adapted from Thomas et al., 2016 ) using three items and on a seven-point scale (α = 0.83, 95% CI = [0.81, 0.86]). The order of presentation of the above measures was randomized. Participants then completed a measure of the mediating mechanism explored in SOM-III: people's essentialist beliefs about a cause (α = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.90, 0.93]); Bastian and Haslam, 2006 ). Finally, they provided demographic information before exiting the survey. No mention was made of the second session of the study. Means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations are reported in Table 2 .

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of measures in Study 2 (N = 540).

Note . The censoring rates, ranging from 0 to 1, refer to the proportion of comments of each type (congruent, incongruent, or irrelevant) that participants censored. Fusion's effect on selective censoring is the difference between fusion's association with the censoring rates of congruent and incongruent comments. This effect was not moderated by position on abortion rights. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

4.4. Time 2 (T2)

4.4.1. participants.

Approximately two weeks later, the second session of the study, titled “Comment Moderation Task”, was posted. Only participants who completed the T1 survey could view the posting, but they were not aware of this, and the study posting did not describe the eligibility criterion or its connection to the first part of the study. Under these circumstances, it is highly likely that participants perceived no connection between the first and second session of the study. A total of 542 participants completed the second session of the study. Two participants who completed less than 50% of the task were excluded, 4 leaving us with a final sample of 540 participants (48.70% female; 68.83% White; M age  = 33.53; SD age  = 12.30; 440 pro-choice and 100 pro-life participants). A sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations revealed that our sample had 99.8% power to detect the fusion effect on selective censoring reported in Study 1. There were no differences in fusion ( t (743) = 1.19, p  = .23, d  = 0.10) between those who did vs. did not complete the second session of the study.

4.4.2. Comment moderation procedure

Participants read about an online forum for discussions on current affairs. They learned that the forum's administrators had received complaints about inappropriate posts by some users and that their task was to help the administrators identify inappropriate posts and block people who repeatedly posted such content. Participants also learned that the comments and users flagged by them would be removed from the forum by its moderators. Because the study was posted on Prolific using a lab account that had previously been used to post other research studies, participants may have easily linked the task to our university and thus may have felt skeptical about our claims that they were evaluating comments from an actual discussion forum and that their evaluations would have real-world consequences. To address this, the study description said that users of the forum were college students and that the forum was owned and run by our university.

Participants then read a series of 28 comments on the abortion rights issue. The comments were designed to look like screenshots of posts from an actual online discussion forum (see Fig. 3 for an example). As shown in the figure, a user icon and handle were displayed next to each comment. The comments that participants read were systematically varied on two factors: Each comment was either pro-choice or pro-life and either offensive or inoffensive. Of the 28 comments, 14 were pro-choice and 14 were pro-life; 14 were pre-determined via the pilot study to be offensive and 14 were inoffensive. In sum, there were four types of comments ( N  = 7 for each type): Offensive-Prochoice, Inoffensive-Prochoice, Offensive-Prolife, and Inoffensive-Prolife. The pro-choice comments were all posted by a single user, and the pro-life comments were all posted by another user. For each comment, participants could recommend deletion or retention, which was our primary measure of censoring. After evaluating all comments, participants were also asked whether the two users whose comments they read should be banned from the blog (“Ban this user from the blog” or “Do not ban this user from the blog”). Finally, participants were asked about the extent to which they doubted the veracity of our claims on a five-point scale (1 =  Not at all ; 5 =  A great deal ), and the mean rating ( M  = 2.56, SD  = 0.98) was lower than the mid-point of the scale (i.e., 3 = A moderate amount; t(533) = −10.282, p  < .001, d  = −0.45), suggesting that a considerable proportion of participants believed that they were helping the moderators of a real blog.

Fig. 3

Example of an inoffensive pro-choice comment used in the comment moderation task (Study 2).

For each participant, we calculated censoring rates corresponding to the proportion of comments congruent with the participant's position on abortion rights and also the proportion of incongruent comments that they flagged. As in Study 1, selective censoring was indicated by a higher censoring rate for incongruent than congruent comments. For the offensiveness-related analyses, we also computed censoring rates for each of the four types of comments (Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent) to determine whether participants selectively censored incongruent comments among both offensive and inoffensive comments. Overall, participants censored offensive comments ( M  = 0.47, SD  = 0.29) more than inoffensive comments ( M  = 0.06, SD  = 0.13; t (559) = 35, p  < .001, d  = 1.79) indicating that the offensiveness manipulation was successful. The censoring rates for offensive and inoffensive comments were correlated [ r (538) = 0.27, p  < .001], indicating that there are relatively stable individual differences in participants' censoring rates.

5. Study 2 results

5.1. did people selectively censor comments incongruent with their cause and the comments' authors.

Although not pre-registered, we tested whether people generally selectively censored incongruent comments more than congruent comments We compared the censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments via a paired t -test. Replicating Study 1 findings, people censored 32.40% ( SD  = 22.88) of the incongruent comments but only 20.64% ( SD  = 16.18%) of the congruent comments, t(539) = 13.84, p  < .001, d  = 0.58.

We also conducted exploratory analysis testing whether people were disproportionately willing to ban the author of the incongruent comments relative to the author of the congruent comments. We used a McNemar's Chi-squared test to account for the within-subjects nature of the data and found a significant effect (χ 2 (1) = 9.24, p  = .002) such that 21.31% of participants opted to ban the user who posted incongruent comments as opposed to just 15.41% who banned the user posting congruent comments.

5.2. Did identity fusion amplify the selectively censoring of incongruent comments and their authors?

5.2.1. selectively censoring of incongruent comments.

To test our pre-registered hypothesis that strongly fused individuals would be especially likely to selectively censor incongruent comments, we tested a SEM model similar to Study 1 (see Fig. 4 ) with residual covariances between the censoring rates. Alternate analyses treating the difference between censoring rates of incongruent and congruent comments as the selective censoring index did not alter our conclusions (see the last column in Table 3 in the article and SOM-II). As in Study 1, we standardized the continuous predictors in all the SEM analyses, and we report unstandardized regression coefficients. Fusion positively predicted censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 path; b  = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.045], p  = .008) but not censoring congruent comments ( c 2 path; b  = −0.005, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.01], p  = .50). Replicating Study 1's main finding, the difference between the fusion effects on censoring incongruent vs. congruent comments was statistically significant, (Δ c  =  c 1 - c 2 ; χ 2 (1) = 13.14, p  < .001), which is evidence that fusion is associated with selective censoring. To illustrate, participants who were strongly fused (+ 1 SD ) censored 36.36% of the incongruent comments they read but only 18.65% of the congruent comments. Weakly fused participants censored 29.49% of the incongruent comments and 21.26% of the congruent comments, indicating a weaker selective censoring tendency. Fusion's effect on selective censoring remained significant when we controlled for whether participants were pro-choice or pro-life (χ 2 (1) = 13.50, p  < .001), and the effect was not moderated by position on abortion rights (χ 2 (1) = 0.04, p  = .85).

Fig. 4

Structural Equations Model depicting the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments (Study 2). The c 1 and c 2 paths represent the effects of fusion on censoring incongruent and congruent comments respectively. The path coefficients in the figure are unstandardized. The significant difference between the two paths (Δ c ) indicates that fusion is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. ** indicates p  < .01. *** indicates p  < .001.

Path coefficients (c 1 and c 2 ) and Chi-sq values (χ 2 ) of SEM models and coefficients from regression models testing the effects of each identity-related measure on selective censoring (Study 2). Note that each model included only one predictor.

Note . In each model, the predictor was standardized, but the censoring rates were not. The censoring rates ranged from 0 to 1. The path coefficients reported are unstandardized. † indicates p  < .1. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01. *** indicates p  < .001.

Our pre-registered mediational analyses (see SOM-III) suggest that essentialistic beliefs regarding people's stance on abortion rights might be at least one mediating mechanism explaining the fusion effect on selective censoring. In our pre-registration, we also proposed to test the fusion effect controlling for other identity-related measures. We accordingly report a model in which the predictive ability of all the identity-related measures are compared (see SOM-V). Nevertheless, because the measured variables are all strongly related both conceptually and empirically (see Table 2 ), after establishing that multicollinearity was not a problem, we examined whether each of these variables independently predicts selective censoring.

5.2.2. Selective censoring of the authors of incongruent comments

The foregoing analyses revealed that identity fusion with a cause is associated with a tendency to disproportionately censor online content that is incongruent with the cause. To test the pre-registered hypothesis that strongly fused individuals would also display a censoring bias against the authors of incongruent content, we examined a SEM model with two dependent variables corresponding to the binary indicators of whether the participant decided to ban the authors of incongruent, and congruent comments. Fusion was not significantly associated with banning the author of the incongruent comments (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = [0.95, 1.45], p  = .14) or congruent comments (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.78, 1.25], p  = .90). The difference between the two paths, computed as two times the negative loglikelihood of the difference between the two paths, was not significant (χ 2 (1) = 1.18, p  = .28), indicating that fusion was not associated with selectively censoring authors of incongruent comments. However, given that the non-significant coefficients of the two paths were in the predicted direction, it is possible that there exists a small effect that our sample was not sufficiently powered to detect.

5.2.3. Did offensiveness moderate the effect of fusion on selectively censoring?

To verify Study 1's exploratory finding and our pre-registered hypothesis that the offensiveness of comments would not moderate the effect of fusion on selective censoring, we modeled the paths from fusion to participants' censoring rates for four types of comments: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent (see Fig. 5 ).

Fig. 5

Structural Equations Model examining the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments among offensive and inoffensive comments (Study 2). Δ p and Δ q represent fusion's effects on selective censoring among offensive comments and inoffensive comments, respectively. The significant effects indicate that strongly fused people selectively censored incongruent comments whether the comments were offensive or inoffensive. See SOM-IV for path coefficients. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

Among offensive comments, fusion was associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments over congruent comments (Δ p  =  p1 – p2 ; b  = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.06], p  = .001). Similarly, among inoffensive comments, strongly fused individuals selectively censored incongruent comments (Δ q  =  q 1 – q 2; b  =  0 .02, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.04], p  = .008). (The four path coefficients are reported in SOM-IV). The two significant selective censoring effects suggest that strongly fused people's selective intolerance for incongruent comments was observable among both offensive and inoffensive comments. Comparing two selective censoring effects for offensive vs. inoffensive comments (Δ p – Δ q ) revealed a marginally significant difference (χ 2 (1) = 3.34, p  = .07), suggesting that fusion's effect on selective censoring may have been larger for offensive than inoffensive comments. What is striking however is that as in Study 1, strongly fused people selectively censored incongruent comments even when the comments were inoffensive.

5.3. Did fusion's effect on selective censoring of incongruent comments generalize to other identity-related measures?

Thus far, we focused on the effects of identity fusion. Nevertheless, we conducted exploratory analyses testing the possibility that selective censoring of incongruent comments results from a constellation of identity-related processes. To test this possibility, we assessed the effects of attitude strength (attitude extremity, attitude centrality, attitude certainty, and attitude importance), moral conviction, and identification with supporters, which all index different aspects of people's alignment with a cause. Using the same approach as in the fusion analysis, we sequentially tested the relation of each of the seven predictors to selective censoring. Table 3 reports each model's path coefficients from the tested variable to censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 ) and to censoring congruent comments ( c 2 ). Table 3 also reports the chi-square difference between the two paths ( c 1 – c 2 ) indicating the extent to which the tested variable is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. The last column presents linear regression coefficients from alternate analyses testing the effect of each identity-related measure on the difference in participants' censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments.

As indicated by the significant chi-square differences (Δ c ) and the significant regression coefficients ( b ) in Table 3 , each of the constructs produced selective censoring similar to the fusion effects, which is preliminary evidence that broader identity-related processes motivate selective censoring.

Interestingly, most of the predictors (attitude certainty, attitude centrality, attitude extremity, identification with cause supporters, and moral conviction) were negatively associated with censoring congruent comments (see c 2 coefficients in Table 3 ), indicating that they produce a tendency to be lenient toward congruent comments. On the contrary, fusion and attitude importance were not correlated with censoring congruent comments; instead, they were positively associated with censoring incongruent comments (see c 1 coefficients in Table 3 ), implying that these constructs were associated with an intolerance for incongruent comments. We speculate that a preference for congruent content and an intolerance against incongruent content reflect two independent mechanisms leading to selective censorship of incongruent comments.

5.4. Did selective censoring of incongruent comments depend on people's ideologies?

We tested another SEM model (not pre-registered) similar to the fusion analysis to assess the effect of people's stance on abortion rights (pro-choice vs. pro-life). Unlike Study 1, pro-choice participants selectively censored incongruent comments as much as pro-life participants (χ 2 (1) = 2.38, p  = .12), which may be due to higher threat levels among pro-choice participants following the, 2018 nomination Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That is, owing to the conservative shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court in, 2018, pro-choice participants in Study 2 may have generally faced higher threat relative to Study 1, which could have increased their tendency to selectively censor pro-life comments. There was also no difference in fusion levels among pro-choice and pro-life participants ( t (537) = 0.59, p  = .56, d  = 0.07).

6. Study 2 discussion

Study 2 replicated Study 1's main findings that people censor online content that is incongruent with their own political views and that strongly fused individuals are especially likely to selectively censor incongruent content. Strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent comments was robust for both offensive and inoffensive comments. Contrary to Study 1, we did not find evidence that pro-life participants selectively censored more than pro-choice participants, which we believe could be due to the socio-political environment during Study 2 data collection.

In addition to replicating Study 1 effects, Study 2 also examined people's willingness to ban the authors of incongruent vs. congruent comments from the forum. We found that cause supporters selectively banned the author who consistently posted cause-incongruent content. Contrary to our hypothesis, this effect was not amplified by fusion. This may have been because banning authors is a relatively extreme action that participants in our samples generally did not endorse. Conceivably, there is a small association of fusion with selective censoring of authors that our sample was underpowered to detect.

Finally, the study found that the selective censoring effect extends to an array of identity-related measures in the literature. The findings also indicate that there may be different paths to selective censorship of opposing content: Whereas fusion and attitude importance were associated with an increased tendency to censor incongruent comments, the other identity-related predictors were associated with a weaker tendency to censor congruent comments.

In short, the results of Study 2 replicated the selective censoring effect that emerged in Study 1. A potential limitation of these studies, however, is that both focused on an issue rooted in religious values, abortion rights. To address this, Study 3 focused on gun rights. The gun-rights issue was particularly relevant in the time that the study was conducted because gun sales peaked during the COVID-19 crisis ( Collins and Yaffe-Bellany, 2020 ).

The method used in Study 3 resembled those used in previous studies except that we used a more controlled manipulation of comment offensiveness that kept the content of the comments constant. Whereas in Study 2 comments were categorized as offensive or inoffensive based on coders' ratings, in Study 3, for each inoffensive comment, we generated an offensive version by adding offensive phrases. In this way, the content of inoffensive and comments was identical except for offensive language. Finally, as in Study 2, we assessed whether the selective censoring effect of fusion generalized to other identity-related measures such as indices of attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters.

8. Study 3 Method

8.1. power analysis.

As mentioned in our pre-registration (see https://osf.io/x3w7h/?view_only=a25d722f3a03405e9e4f074a622b10b4 ), an a priori power analysis conducted using Monte Carlo simulations indicated that a sample of 325 participants was required to detect the selective censoring effect detected in Study 2 with an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Given the longitudinal nature of the study, we estimated that approximately 30% of the sample would either drop out between T1 and T2 or fail attention checks, and so we decided to recruit 460 participants at T1.

8.2. Time 1 (T1)

8.2.1. participants.

A sample of 466 participants (49.6% female; 67.0% White; M age  = 31.18; SD age  = 11.14) from Prolific Academic completed the first part of the study in May 2020. Participants' views on gun rights were measured in the T1 survey (370 pro-gun-control and 96 pro-gun-rights participants).

8.2.2. Identity measures

Participants completed the identity fusion scale for their position on gun rights (either pro-gun or anti-gun) on a seven-point scale (α = 0.93). Using the measures used in Study 2, we measured four facets of attitude strength – attitude extremity, attitude centrality, attitude certainty and attitude importance, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters (α = 0.86). The order of presentation of the above constructs was randomized. Means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations are reported in Table 5 . Finally, they provided demographic information.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations with confidence intervals in Study 3 (N = 371).

Note . The censoring rates, ranging from 0 to 1, refer to the proportion of comments of each type (congruent and incongruent) that participants censored. Fusion's effect on selective censoring is the difference between fusion's association with the censoring rates of congruent and incongruent comments. This effect was not moderated by position on gun rights. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01.

8.3. Time 2 (T2)

8.3.1. participants.

Two weeks after completing the T1 survey, participants were able to complete a “Comment Moderation Task”. A total of 373 participants completed the task. Two participants who completed less than 50% of the task were excluded, leaving us with a final sample of 371 participants (52.85% female; 66.85% White; M age  = 31.45; SD age  = 11.61; 297 pro-gun-control and 74 pro-gun-rights participants). A sensitivity analysis revealed that our sample had 85% power to detect the fusion effect on selective censoring reported in Study 2. We found a difference in fusion levels between people who did vs. did not complete the T2 session such that individuals who completed T2 were more fused with the cause ( t (462) = 2.01, p  = .05, d  = −0.23).

8.3.2. Comment moderation procedure

As in the previous studies, we asked participants to help moderators of a college-run discussion forum identify inappropriate posts for removal. We gathered 14 pro-gun-rights comments and 14 pro-gun-control comments from the internet, resulting in 28 comments. We created offensive and inoffensive versions of each comment by including or excluding offensive phrases. Participants read either the offensive or inoffensive version of each of the 28 comments. Overall, participants read four types of comments ( N  = 7 for each type): Offensive-Pro-gun-rights, Inoffensive-Pro-gun-rights, Offensive-Pro-gun-control, and Inoffensive-Pro-gun-control (See Table 4 for example comments). As in Study 2, each comment was accompanied by a user icon and timestamp like in real online forums. The pro-gun-rights comments were all posted by a single user, and the pro-gun-control comments were all posted by another user. As in the previous studies, for each comment, participants recommended deletion or retention. After evaluating all comments, participants were also asked whether the two users whose comments they read should be banned from the blog (“Ban this user from the blog” or “Do not ban this user from the blog”). Finally, participants rated how much they doubted that the forum was not real on a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = a great deal). The mean rating ( M  = 2.65, SD  = 0.99) was lower than the mid-point of the scale (i.e., 3 = A moderate amount; t(366) = −6.77, p  < .001, d  = −0.35), suggesting that participants generally did not doubt the veracity of the paradigm.

Sample comments rated by participants in Study 3. The study included 28 comments (14 pro-gun-rights and 14 pro-gun-control), each of which had an offensive and an inoffensive version. Participants rated either the offensive or inoffensive version of each of the 28 comments. The comments were presented in the format illustrated in Fig. 3 and in random order.

For each participant, we calculated censoring rates corresponding to comments congruent and incongruent with their own position on guns. For the offensiveness-related analyses, we also computed censoring rates for each of the four types of comments (Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent). Overall, participants censored offensive comments ( M  = 0.58, SD  = 0.28) more than inoffensive comments ( M  = 0.07, SD  = 0.12; t (370) = 33.98, p  < .001¸ d  = 2.27) indicating that the offensiveness manipulation was successful. The censoring rates for offensive and inoffensive comments were correlated albeit more weakly than in Study 1 ( r (369) = 0.17, p  < .001).

9. Study 3 results

9.1. did people selectively censor comments incongruent with their cause and the comments' authors.

We tested the pre-registered hypothesis that people would selectively censor incongruent comments more than congruent comments. We conducted a paired t -test comparing the censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments. Replicating findings from the first two studies, people censored more incongruent comments ( M  = 36.97%; SD  = 19.64) than congruent comments ( M  = 27.88%; SD  = 17.62), t (370) = 10.02, p  < .001, d  = 0.49.

We also conducted a pre-registered analysis testing whether people were disproportionately willing to ban the author of the incongruent comments relative to the author of the congruent comments. Contrary to our hypothesis and the results of Study 1, we did not find a significant difference (χ 2 (1) = 1.92, p  = .17). Nevertheless, the means trended in the expected direction. That is, 32.69% of participants banned the user who posted incongruent comments as opposed to just 29.51% who banned the user posting congruent comments.

9.2. Did identity fusion amplify the selectively censoring of incongruent comments?

To test our pre-registered hypothesis that strongly fused individuals would be especially likely to selectively censor incongruent comments, we tested a SEM model (see Fig. 6 ) with residual covariances between the censoring rates. (Alternate analyses treating the difference between censoring rates of incongruent and congruent comments as the selective censoring index, reported in Table 6 below and in SOM-II, result in the same findings). As in Studies 1 and 2, we standardized the predictors in all the SEM analyses, and we report unstandardized regression coefficients. Fusion positively (but not significantly) predicted censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 path; b  = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.004, 0.04], p  = .12) but not censoring congruent comments ( c 2 path; b  = −0.006, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.01], p  = .49). The difference between the fusion effects on censoring incongruent vs. congruent comments was significant, (Δ c  =  c 1 - c 2 ; χ 2 (1) = 6.01, p  = .01), which is evidence that fusion is associated with selective censoring. To illustrate, participants who were strongly fused (+ 1 SD ) censored 41.47% of the incongruent comments they read but only 28.56% of the congruent comments. Weakly fused participants censored 35.92% of the incongruent comments and 29.52% of the congruent comments, indicating weaker selective censoring. The effect of fusion on selective censoring remained significant when we controlled for whether participants favored pro-gun-rights or pro-gun-control (χ 2 (1) = 9.24, p  = .002), and the effect was not moderated by position on gun rights (χ 2 (1) = 0.05, p  = .83).

Path coefficients (c 1 and c 2 ) and Chi-sq values (χ 2 ) of SEM models and coefficients from regression models testing the effects of each identity-related measure on selective censoring (Study 3). Note that each model included only one predictor.

Note . In each model, the predictor was standardized, but the censoring rates were not. The censoring rates ranged from 0 to 1. The path coefficients reported are unstandardized. * indicates p  < .05. ** indicates p  < .01. *** indicates p  < .001.

Fig. 6

Structural Equations Model depicting the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments (Study 3). The c 1 and c 2 paths represent the effects of fusion on censoring incongruent and congruent comments respectively. The significant difference between the two paths (Δ c ) indicates that fusion is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. * indicates p  < .05.

9.2.1. Did offensiveness moderate the effect of fusion on selectively censoring?

As in the previous studies and consistent with the pre-registration, we modeled the paths from fusion to participants' censoring rates for four types of comments: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent (see Fig. 7 ). Among inoffensive comments, fusion was associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments over congruent comments (Δ q  =  q1 – q2 ; b  = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.009, 0.04], p  = .003). Among offensive comments, the effect was in the predicted direction but not significant (Δ p  =  p 1 – p 2; b  =  0 .02, 95% CI = [−0.007, 0.04], p  = .16). (The four path coefficients are reported in SOM-IV). Comparing two selective censoring effects for offensive vs. inoffensive comments (Δ p – Δ q ) revealed no difference (χ 2 (1) = 0.39, p  = .53).

Fig. 7

Structural Equations Model examining the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments among offensive and inoffensive comments (Study 3). Δ p and Δ q represent fusion's effects on selective censoring among offensive comments and inoffensive comments, respectively. The difference between them was not significant, which indicates that comment offensiveness did not moderate fusion's effect on selective censoring. See SOM-IV for path coefficients. ** indicates p  < .01.

9.3. Did fusion's effect on selective censoring of incongruent comments generalize to other identity-related measures?

We then tested our pre-registered hypothesis that fusion's effect on selective censoring would extend to seven identity-related measures. Using models similar to the fusion analysis, we tested the effect of each predictor on selective censoring. Table 6 reports each model's path coefficients from the tested variable to censoring incongruent ( c 1 ) and congruent ( c 2 ) comments, and the chi-square difference between the two paths ( c 1 – c 2 ) indicating the extent to which the tested variable is associated with selective censoring. The last column in Table 6 presents linear regression coefficients from alternate models testing the effect of each identity-related measures on the difference between participants' censoring rates for incongruent and congruent comments. The significant chi-square differences (Δ c ) and regression coefficients ( b ) indicate that the selective censoring effect generalized to each of the seven identity-related measures. In contrast to Study 2, the selective censoring effect was largely driven by positive associations between the identity-related measures and censoring incongruent comments.

9.4. Did selective censoring of incongruent comments depend on people's ideologies?

We tested another exploratory SEM model to assess the effect of people's stance on gun rights (pro-gun-rights vs. pro-gun-control). Gun-control supporters selectively censored incongruent comments more than gun-rights supporters (χ 2 (1) = 17.09, p  < .001) even though pro-gun- rights supporters tended to be more strongly fused than pro-gun- control supporters ( t (367) = 2.18, p  = .03, d  = 0.28). Study 3 was conducted during a period that saw increased gun sales ( Collins and Yaffe-Bellany, 2020 ), which should have increased the threat perceived by gun-control supporters, increasing their tendency to selectively censor opposition.\.

10. Study 3 discussion

Study 3 demonstrated that the selective censoring effect extends to issues beyond religiously tinged issues such as abortion rights. Specifically, people selectively censored comments that opposed their views on the gun rights debate, and this effect was amplified among people who were strongly fused with their cause. As in Studies 1 and 2, people selectively censored incongruent comments even when they were inoffensive. Contrary to Study 2, we did not find a significant selective censoring effect on offensive comments, but it could be that our study was underpowered to detect this effect. Further, gun-control proponents selectively censored more than gun-rights proponents, which when taken together with Studies 1 and 2, suggests that people's willingness to selectively censor may depend on the cause at hand (pro-choice or pro-gun-control) and the political context (e.g., level of threat faced by the cause) rather than political ideology (left or right).

Study 3 also replicated the Study 2 finding that selective censoring extends to a range of identity related constructs including attitude strength, identification with supporters, and moral conviction. Nevertheless, we did not find similar results across Studies 2 and 3 regarding the degree to which each identity-related process produced a lenience toward congruent content or an intolerance of incongruent content. Future research will need to disentangle the links between identity related processes and selective censoring.

10.1. General discussion

The current research provides an initial glimpse into how people censor political opponents when moderating online content. Specifically, in three studies, participants who were asked to moderate an online forum deleted approximately 5–12% more identity-incongruent, relative to identity-congruent, comments from putative online forums. Moreover, we found weak evidence that participants were about 3–5% points more likely to ban authors of incongruent as compared to congruent comments. These findings transcend past research on selective exposure and avoidance ( Bakshy et al., 2015 ; Garrett, 2009a ; van der Linden, 2017 ) because censorship is a particularly extreme action that affects not just one's own online environment but also the environments of other people. Furthermore, unlike traditional censorship enforced only by the state ( Bonsaver, 2007 ; Fishburn, 2008 ), the decentralized nature of this new form of censorship implemented by independent users could make it easy to overlook and thus potentially more insidious.

Our evidence that people censor the social media posts of political opponents is consistent with recent evidence that the salutary impact of intergroup contact on intergroup harmony ( Paluck et al., 2018 ) may not extend to online interactions ( Bail et al., 2018 ). We also show, however, that selective censorship of opponents' comments was amplified among people whose cause-related views were firmly rooted in their identities. Strongly fused participants deleted approximately 13–18% more identity-incongruent than identity-congruent comments, while weakly fused participants were much less biased (0–9%). Strikingly, strongly fused individuals disproportionately censored opponents' comments even when the comments conveyed opposing views in an inoffensive and courteous manner. The identity-driven effect on selective censoring generalized to six other identity-related measures including indices of attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters. The converging results across the various predictors suggest that selective censoring results from a combination of several identity-related processes.

Future research might work toward developing a theoretical model of selective censoring that elaborates the relationships between various identity-related processes. Such work might also investigate the two possible mechanisms underlying selective censoring: lenience toward congruent content versus intolerance of incongruent content. Future researchers might also follow up on our evidence that strongly fused participants were especially apt to censor opponents' comments but not their opponents themselves . Also, perhaps people ban individuals based on their most offensive comment rather than based on evaluating multiple comments. Further, whereas we focused on identity-related processes, future research might consider other processes such as expectations regarding the content online subscribers of a given forum prefer ( Haselmayer et al., 2017 ) that may also contribute to moderators' selective censoring.

The censorship effects described here could have considerable impact on online forums and communities that millions of people follow. Studies of moderators have noted that a small number of them govern very large online communities and that they hold enormous power over their communities ( Frith, 2014 ; Matias, 2016b ). Still, past work on moderators has largely focused on how people become moderators ( Shaw and Hill, 2014 ), and the nature of their roles ( Berge and Collins, 2000 ; Colladon and Vagaggini, 2017 ; Frith, 2014 ) and struggles ( Matias, 2016a ). Although some case studies have examined abuse of power by moderators ( Yang, 2019 ), including anecdotal evidence of politically motivated censorship ( Wright, 2006 ), the current research is the first systematic investigation of censoring among people who moderate online communities. This investigation is consequential because selective censoring that favors the viewpoints of a small number of moderators could produce huge biases in the content that millions see. Indeed, censoring by powerful moderators can give onlookers who are not aware that censoring has occurred a false sense of the views of the people in an online community and who belongs there.

Still, our findings may generalize beyond the groups of people who serve as moderators of large online communities or forums. The millions of people who own blogs, YouTube channels, and social media pages, can moderate others' comments on the platforms they control. Even regular social media users can moderate others' comments on their own posts. Of course, in our studies, participants were explicitly given the goal of deleting inappropriate comments. Because most regular social media users may not experience a strong deletion-focused goal, they may censor less than moderators do. Nevertheless, the collective impact of each of these individuals' censoring could produce substantial consequences.

We believe censorship is a potentially overlooked factor in the heightened political polarization our culture is witnessing. This could have important ramifications. For example, selective censoring could lead to a lack of exposure to different viewpoints, creating echo chambers and causing people to develop increasingly extreme opinions ( Price et al., 2006 ) and to overestimate the prevalence of their own viewpoints ( Ross et al., 1977 ). In addition, opponents of causes may witness the increased extremism of inhabitants of the echo chamber and respond in kind by adopting extreme opposing views of their own ( Bail et al., 2018 ). These processes may reinforce themselves, producing more and more polarization over time ( Allcott et al., 2020 ). Censorship could also have implications for the people being censored, who may feel marginalized and become disengaged from the online community or be less likely to share his or her views in the future. Future studies should examine the consequences of selective censoring in online contexts.

11. Conclusion

Contemporary pundits often blame the apparent increase in polarization on “the internet” or “social media.” Researchers have found some basis for such assertions by demonstrating that internet users are indeed selectively exposed to evidence that would lend support to their views. Our findings move beyond this literature by demonstrating that moderators employ censorship to not only bring online content into harmony with their values, but to actively advance their causes and attack opponents of their causes. From this vantage point, those whose political beliefs are rooted in their identities are not passive participants in online polarization; rather, they are agentic actors who actively curate online environments by censoring content that challenges their ideological positions. By providing a window into the psychological processes underlying these processes, our research may open up a broader vista of related processes for systematic study.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grants BCS-1124382 and BCS1528851 to William B. Swann, Jr.], an Advanced Grant from the European Research Council 694986 to Michael Buhrmester, and grant by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades RTI2018-093550-B-I00 to Angel Gomez. The funders played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Acknowledgments

We thank Elliot Tucker-Drob and Greg Hixon for their help with the data analysis.

Open practices

All study materials and data used in this research have been made publicly available and can be accessed at https://osf.io/4jtwk/?view_only=10627a9892464e5aa90fe92360b846ad . The design, methods, and analysis plan of Studies 2 and 3 were pre-registered, and these can be viewed at https://osf.io/2jvau?view_only=754165d77cbe4e69baf6b11740b1a422 and https://osf.io/x3w7h/?view_only=a25d722f3a03405e9e4f074a622b10b4 respectively.

☆This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Ashwini Ashokkumar

1 Selective censorship can occur as a result of two processes: greater censoring of cause-incongruent content and/or less censoring of cause-congruent content. We did not have an a priori hypothesis regarding which of these selective censoring processes fusion would amplify.

2 Note that the data were collected before reports of drop in the quality of the MTurk participant pool surfaced in, 2018 ( TurkPrime, 2018 ).

3 When designing the Study 1 materials, we did not ensure that the three types of comments (i.e., pro-choice, pro-life, and irrelevant comments) were equally offensive. For example, the post-hoc offensiveness ratings suggest that the pro-life comments may have been generally less offensive than the pro-choice and irrelevant comments. For this reason, the estimates of censoring obtained in Study 2, in which we systematically varied offensiveness a priori, are more trustworthy.

4 In Studies 2 and 3, we excluded participants who responded to fewer than 50% of the comments because their censoring rates are likely to be inaccurate estimates. Note that this exclusion criterion was not pre-registered. In both studies, including these participants did not alter our findings.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104031 .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material

  • Adamic L.A., Glance N. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery. ACM; 2005, August. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog; pp. 36–43. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Allcott H., Braghieri L., Eichmeyer S., Gentzkow M. The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review. 2020; 110 (3):629–676. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ashokkumar A., Galaif M., Swann W.B., Jr. Tribalism can corrupt: Why people denounce or protect immoral group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019; 85 :103874. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bail C.A., Argyle L.P., Brown T.W., Bumpus J.P., Chen H., Hunzaker M.F., Volfovsky A. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018; 115 (37):9216–9221. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bakshy E., Messing S., Adamic L.A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. 2015; 348 (6239):1130–1132. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1160. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barberá P., Jost J.T., Nagler J., Tucker J.A., Bonneau R. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science. 2015; 26 (10):1531–1542. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bastian B., Haslam N. Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2006; 42 (2):228–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berge Z.L., Collins M.P. Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education. 2000; 21 (1):81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Binder A.R., Dalrymple K.E., Brossard D., Scheufele D.A. The soul of a polarized democracy: Testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research. 2009; 36 (3):315–340. doi: 10.1177/0093650209333023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boninger D.S., Krosnick J.A., Berent M.K. Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 68 (1):61. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.61. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bonsaver G. University of Toronto Press; 2007. Censorship and literature in fascist Italy. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boutyline A., Willer R. The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology. 2017; 38 (3):551–569. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brady W.J., Wills J.A., Jost J.T., Tucker J.A., Van Bavel J.J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017; 114 (28):7313–7318. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618923114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brewer M.B. Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction. 2001; 3 :17–41. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Clarkson J.J., Tormala Z.L., DeSensi V.L., Wheeler S.C. Does attitude certainty beget self-certainty? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009; 45 (2):436–439. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Colladon A.F., Vagaggini F. Robustness and stability of enterprise intranet social networks: The impact of moderators. Information Processing & Management. 2017; 53 (6):1287–1298. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Collins K., Yaffe-Bellany D. The New York times. 2020, April 2. About 2 million guns were sold in the US as virus fears spread. www.nytimes.com Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Conditt J. Engadget. 2016, July 28. Moderators banned 2,200 accounts during Donald Trump’s AMA. https://www.engadget.com Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Crawford J.T., Pilanski J.M. Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology. 2014; 35 (6):841–851. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fazio R.H., Zanna M.P. Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1978; 14 (4):398–408. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fishburn M. Burning Books. Palgrave Macmillan; London: 2008. The burning of the books; pp. 31–48. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fisher R., Lilie S., Evans C., Hollon G., Sands M., Depaul D.…Hultgren T. Political ideologies and support for censorship: Is it a question of whose ox is being gored? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999; 29 (8):1705–1731. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fredman L.A., Bastian B., Swann W.B., Jr. God or country? Fusion with Judaism predicts desire for retaliation following Palestinian stabbing Intifada. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2017; 1948550617693059 doi: 10.1177/1948550617693059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Frith J. Forum moderation as technical communication: The social web and employment opportunities for technical communicators. Technical Communication. 2014; 61 (3):173–184. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Garimella V.R.K., Weber I. Eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media. 2017, May. A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Garrett R. Selective processes, exposure, perception, memory. In: Kaid L.L., Holtz-Bacha C., editors. Encyclopedia of political communication. Vol. 1. SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2008. p. 741. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Garrett R.K. Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2009; 14 (2):265–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Garrett R.K. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication. 2009; 59 (4):676–699. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gómez Á., Brooks M.L., Buhrmester M.D., Vázquez A., Jetten J., Swann W.B., Jr. On the nature of identity fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011; 100 (5):918. doi: 10.1037/a0022642. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gómez Á., Vázquez A., López-Rodríguez L., Talaifar S., Martínez M., Buhrmester M.D., Swann W.B., Jr. Why people abandon groups: Degrading relational vs collective ties uniquely impacts identity fusion and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019; 85 :103853. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hart W., Albarracín D., Eagly A.H., Brechan I., Lindberg M.J., Merrill L. Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135 (4):555. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Haselmayer M., Wagner M., Meyer T.M. Partisan bias in message selection: Media gatekeeping of party press releases. Political Communication. 2017; 34 (3):367–384. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hense R., Wright C. The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1992; 22 (21):1666–1675. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holbert R.L., Garrett R.K., Gleason L.S. A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication. 2010; 60 (1):15–34. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Iyengar S., Hahn K.S. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication. 2009; 59 (1):19–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • John N.A., Dvir-Gvirsman S. “I don’t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel–Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication. 2015; 65 (6):953–974. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lawrence E., Sides J., Farrell H. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics. 2010; 8 (1):141–157. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Leber, c. The New Republic; 2016, January 14. Gun control can swing the 2016 election. https://newrepublic.com Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Linder M. Block. Mute. Unfriend. Tensions rise on Facebook after election results. 2016, November 9. https://www.chicagotribune.com Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from.
  • Lindner N.M., Nosek B.A. Alienable speech: Ideological variations in the application of free-speech principles. Political Psychology. 2009; 30 (1):67–92. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Matias J.N. Internet politics and policy conference. United Kingdom; Oxford: 2016. The civic labor of online moderators. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Matias J.N. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2016. Going dark: Social factors in collective action against platform operators in the Reddit blackout; pp. 1138–1151. [ Google Scholar ]
  • McAdams D.P. What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality. 1995; 63 (3):365–396. [ Google Scholar ]
  • McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J.M. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology. 2001; 27 (1):415–444. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Motyl M., Iyer R., Oishi S., Trawalter S., Nosek B.A. How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014; 51 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. 2012. MPlus: Statistical analysis with latent variables—User’s guide. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Paluck E.L., Green S.A., Green D. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy. 2018:1–30. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.25. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Price V., Nir L., Cappella J.N. Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory. 2006; 16 (1):47–74. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rentfrow P.J., Gosling S.D., Potter J. A theory of the emergence, persistence, and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008; 3 (5):339–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00084.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Riffkin R. Abortion edges up as important voting issue for Americans. Gallup. 2015, May 29. http://news.gallup.com Retrieved from.
  • Ross L., Greene D., House P. The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1977; 13 (3):279–301. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schmidt G.B. Fifty days an MTurk worker: The social and motivational context for Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 8 (2):165–171. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.20. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sears D.O., Freedman J.L. Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1967; 31 (2):194–213. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shaw A., Hill B.M. Laboratories of oligarchy? How the iron law extends to peer production. Journal of Communication. 2014; 64 (2):215–238. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sibona C. 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE; 2014, January. Unfriending on Facebook: Context collapse and unfriending behaviors; pp. 1676–1685. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Singh R., Ho S.Y. Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2000; 39 :197–211. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Singh R., Teoh J.B.P. Attitudes and attraction: A test of two hypotheses for the similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1999; 38 :427–443. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skitka L.J., Morgan G.S. The social and political implications of moral conviction. In: Lavine H., editor. Advances in Political Psychology. Vol. 35. 2014. pp. 95–110. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skitka L.J., Mullen E. Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002; 28 (10):1419–1429. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skitka L.J., Bauman C.W., Sargis E.G. Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 88 (6):895. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stoycheff E. Please participate in part 2: Maximizing response rates in longitudinal MTurk designs. Methodological Innovations. 2016; 9 doi: 10.1177/2059799116672879. 2059799116672879. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stroud N.J. The Oxford handbook of political communication. 2017. Selective exposure theories. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Suedfeld P., Steel G.D., Schmidt P.W. Political ideology and attitudes toward censorship 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1994; 24 (9):765–781. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Swann W.B., Jr., Gómez A., Seyle D.C., Morales J., Huici C. Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 96 (5):995. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Swann W.B., Jr., Jetten J., Gómez Á., Whitehouse H., Bastian B. When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review. 2012; 119 (3):441. doi: 10.1037/a0028589. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Swann W.B., Jr., Buhrmester M.D., Gómez A., Jetten J., Bastian B., Vázquez A., Finchilescu G. What makes a group worth dying for? Identity fusion fosters perception of familial ties, promoting self-sacrifice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014; 106 (6):912. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tajfel H., Turner J.C. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader. 1979; 56 :65. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Talaifar S., Swann W.B., Jr. Deep alignment with country shrinks the moral gap between conservatives and liberals. Political Psychology. 2019; 40 (3):657–675. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Thomas E.F., McGarty C., Reese G., Berndsen M., Bliuc A.M. Where there is a (collective) will, there are (effective) ways: Integrating individual-and group-level factors in explaining humanitarian collective action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2016; 42 (12):1678–1692. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • TurkPrime After the bot scare: Understanding What's been happening with data collection on MTurk and how to stop it [web log post] 2018, September 18. https://blog.turkprime.com Retrieved from.
  • Van Bavel J.J., Pereira A. The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2018; 22 (3):213–224. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • van der Linden S. The nature of viral altruism and how to make it stick. Nature Human Behavior. 2017; 1 :0041. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van Zomeren M., Postmes T., Spears R. On conviction's collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2012; 51 (1):52–71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wright S. Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of Control1. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2006; 8 (4):550–568. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Yang Y. When power goes wild online: How did a voluntary moderator's abuse of power affect an online community? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2019; 56 (1):504–508. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zaal M.P., Saab R., O’Brien K., Jeffries C., Barreto M., van Laar C. You’re either with us or against us! Moral conviction determines how the politicized distinguish friend from foe. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2017; 20 (4):519–539. [ Google Scholar ]
  • All Stories
  • Journalists
  • Expert Advisories
  • Media Contacts
  • X (Twitter)
  • Arts & Culture
  • Business & Economy
  • Education & Society
  • Environment
  • Law & Politics
  • Science & Technology
  • International
  • 2024 Elections
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Abortion Access
  • Mental Health

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

  • Kate McAlpine

Censored Planet by salvey on Sketchfab

The largest collection of public internet censorship data ever compiled shows that even citizens of the world’s freest countries are not safe from internet censorship.

A University of Michigan team used Censored Planet, an automated censorship tracking system launched in 2018 by assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science Roya Ensafi, to collect more than 21 billion measurements over 20 months in 221 countries. They will present the findings Nov. 10 at the 2020 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security.

“We hope that the continued publication of Censored Planet data will enable researchers to continuously monitor the deployment of network interference technologies, track policy changes in censoring nations, and better understand the targets of interference,” Ensafi said. “While Censored Planet does not attribute censorship to a particular entity, we hope that the massive data we’ve collected can help political and legal scholars determine intent.”

News websites blocked in networks in Poland; social networking sites in Sudan

Ensafi’s team found that censorship is increasing in 103 of the countries studied, including unexpected places like Norway, Japan, Italy, India, Israel and Poland—countries which the paper notes are rated as some of the freest in the world by advocacy group Freedom House. They were among nine countries where Censored Planet found significant, previously undetected censorship events between August of 2018 and April of 2020. Previously undetected events were also identified in Cameroon, Ecuador and Sudan.

While the study observed an increase in blocking activity in these countries, most were driven by organizations or internet service providers filtering content. The study did not observe any nationwide censorship policies such as those in China. While the United States saw a smaller uptick in blocking activity, Ensafi points out that the groundwork for such blocking has been put in place in the United States.

“When the United States repealed net neutrality, they created an environment in which it would be easy, from a technical standpoint, for internet service providers to interfere with or block internet traffic,” Ensafi said. “The architecture for greater censorship is already in place and we should all be concerned about heading down a slippery slope.”

It’s already happening abroad, the study shows.

“What we see from our study is that no country is completely free,” said Ram Sundara Raman, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at U-M and the first author on the paper. “Today, many countries start with legislation that compels internet service providers to block something that’s obviously bad like child sex abuse material. But once that blocking infrastructure is in place, governments can block any websites they choose, and it’s usually a very opaque process. That’s why censorship measurement is crucial, particularly continuous measurements that show trends over time.”

Norway, for example—tied with Finland and Sweden as the world’s freest country according to Freedom House—passed a series of laws requiring internet service providers to block some gambling and pornography content, beginning in early 2018. But in Norway, Censored Planet’s measurements also identified network inconsistencies across a broader range of content, including human rights websites like Human Rights Watch and online dating sites like match.com.

Similar tactics show up in other countries, often in the wake of large political events, social unrest or new laws. While Censored Planet can detect increases in censorship, it cannot identify any direct connection to political events. It’s also important to note that it’s not always government-demanded network censorship that leads to websites being unreachable, though.

Some news websites were blocked in a few networks in Japan during the G20 Summit in June of 2019. News, human rights, and government websites saw a censorship spike in certain networks in Poland while a series of protests occurred in July of 2019, and social media websites were blocked in Sri Lanka after a series of bomb blasts in the country in January 2019. Some online dating websites were blocked in India after the country repealed laws against gay sex in September of 2018.

Censored Planet releases technical details for researchers, activists

Roya Ensafi. Image credit: Joseph Xu, Michigan Engineering

Roya Ensafi. Image credit: Joseph Xu, Michigan Engineering

The researchers say the findings show the effectiveness of Censored Planet’s approach, which turns public internet servers across the globe into automated sentries that can monitor and report when access to websites is being blocked. Running continuously, it takes billions of automated measurements and then uses a series of tools and filters to analyze the data, removing noise and teasing out trends.

The paper also makes public technical details about the workings of Censored Planet that Sundara Raman says will make it easier for other researchers to draw insights from the project’s data. It will also help activists make more informed decisions about where to focus their efforts.

“It’s very important for people who work on circumvention to know exactly what’s being censored on which network and what method is being used,” Ensafi said. “That’s data that Censored Planet can provide, and tech experts can use it to devise circumventions for censorship efforts.”

Censored Planet’s constant, automated monitoring is a departure from traditional approaches that rely on volunteers to collect data manually from inside the countries being monitored. Manual monitoring can be dangerous for volunteers, who may face reprisals from governments. The limited scope of these approaches also means that efforts are often focused on countries already known for censorship, enabling nations that are perceived as freer to fly under the radar. While censorship efforts generally start small, Sundara Raman says they could have big implications in a world that is increasingly dependent on the internet for essential communication needs.

“We imagine the internet as a global medium where anyone can access any resource, and it’s supposed to make communication easier, especially across international borders,” he said. “We find that if this upward trend of increasing censorship continues, that won’t be true anymore. We fear this could lead to a future where every country has a completely different view of the internet.”

The paper is titled “ Censored Planet: An Internet-wide, Longitudinal Censorship Observatory. ” The research team also included former U-M computer science and engineering student Prerana Shenoy, and Katharina Kohls, an assistant professor at Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands. The research was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation, Award CNS-1755841.

Clarifications: This story has been updated to include additional nuance about the research, including: The names of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post websites were removed from the subhead and the body of the story because the instance of blocking was only observed in one network and may be a case of misconfiguration rather than censorship.

More information:

  • Roya Ensafi
  • Ram Sundara Raman

University of Michigan Logo

412 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1399 Email [email protected] Phone 734-764-7260 About Michigan News

  • Engaged Michigan
  • Global Michigan
  • Michigan Medicine
  • Public Affairs

Publications

  • Michigan Today
  • The University Record

Office of the Vice President for Communications © 2024 The Regents of the University of Michigan

The BMJ logo

Political censorship in academic journals sets a dangerous new precedent

censorship research paper example

The academic community must develop a strong position to shield journals, their editors, and staff, against pressure to enforce censorship.

In March 2020, The Lancet published a letter we wrote alerting the medical community to the dangers of a covid-19 outbreak in the Gaza Strip. We warned that the pandemic had “the potential to devastate one of the world’s most vulnerable populations.” [1] Since then, this fear has become reality and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have now endured a fifth largescale Israeli military assault that has killed 256 Palestinians, including 66 children, injured nearly 2,000, and internally displaced some 107,000 people. [2,3]

As we highlighted in our letter, decades of structural violence targeting Palestinian people have brought Gaza’s healthcare system to the brink of collapse. [4] A densely populated area, the majority of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are refugees denied their right of return since 1948. [5] Meanwhile, Israel’s illegal closure and blockade of Gaza since 2007, amounting to collective punishment, have meant that supplies for covid-19 testing, treatment, and vaccination have been severely limited. [6,7]

Although structural racism has increasingly been recognised worldwide as exacerbating the impacts of covid-19, the publication of our letter was met with what Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet , informed us was a threatened boycott of the journal. [8] Certain physicians from the United States and elsewhere had demanded our letter’s removal. Previously, Horton informed us, there had been a similar “sanctions” campaign against The Lancet for publishing a letter in 2014 deploring the morbidity and mortality resulting from Israeli state violence against Gaza’s besieged Palestinians. [9-10] According to Horton, the ordeal that followed took a “traumatic” personal toll on The Lance t’s employees. Subsequently, The Lancet published a special edition on Israeli healthcare that we believe disregards the historical and political forces impacting Palestinian health outcomes. [11,12] The Lancet ’s publication seemed to stand as a warning to anyone who dared address Palestinian health consequences of Israel’s action, which are widely recognised as amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. [13]

The Lancet , we were later told, could not sustain yet another campaign of this nature and, within three days, our letter had been removed from the journal’s website. To date, formal retraction of academic articles has been reserved for papers with “pervasive error, non-reproducible research, scientific misconduct, or duplicate publication.” [14] None of this applies to our letter. In our view, The Lancet ’s editorial removal of our letter constitutes a dangerous new precedent, in which an already published article, that is later deemed politically unpalatable by extra-editorial forces, ends up in an academic “no-man’s-land”—not formally retracted, yet unavailable from the journal itself. 

By allowing powerful external political interests to overrule editorial judgement and policies, the removal of published articles in peer-reviewed journals deals a massive blow to academic freedom. Sadly, this is only the elite tip of the academic freedom iceberg. What of all Palestinians, who—because of Israel’s ongoing occupation—cannot even access the resources necessary to engage in the free exchange of ideas or share their lived reality? [15]

Our latest experience of censorship stands at odds with The Lancet ’s long-standing commitment towards advancing Palestinian health, in particular through the leadership of Richard Horton. [16] In 2009, The Lancet published a series of reports on health in the occupied Palestinian territory. Here, Horton drew attention to “The prison-like cage built around Gaza, the daily humiliations for women, children, and workers passing through checkpoints, the paralysis of the West Bank caused by occupation, [and] the obstacles imposed on communities trying to build schools, clinics, and homes for their children.” [17] This Lancet series was followed by the establishment of the “Lancet Palestinian Health Alliance” (LPHA), which has continued to organise invaluable, annual scientific conferences in the region. LPHA has published hundreds of abstracts from Palestinian and international researchers and provided a “scientifically sound platform for advocacy, awareness, and action around health” in Palestine. [18]

Meanwhile, the cohort of doctors attempting to actively threaten and censor any critical writing on Palestinian health today enjoy respect in their fields. They come primarily from settler colonial societies, including Israel, the United States, Canada, and Australia, and are regularly granted platforms in academic journals to “balance” out the truth about Israel’s oppressive policies. [19,20] The logic is that there are “two sides” to any story involving Palestinian health, and thus equal weight must be given both. What this approach disregards, however, is the profound power differential that inevitably sustains settler colonial myth while concealing the experiences of the colonised. But with medical school curricula increasingly including social medicine and structural competency, these presumptions of “balance” are no longer holding. [21] The ongoing “epistemicide” of Palestinian history and present realities has an urgent remedy: we must actively challenge and correct the dominant narrative by promoting subaltern and decolonial narratives. [22] Expanding discourse in academic medical journals on structural racism as a root cause of health inequities is a long-needed step in the right direction. [23]

The Lancet did not take this route, however. A full six months after we were censored, it published a letter in reply to our deleted correspondence. Authored by Zion Hagay, the Chair of the Israeli Medical Association—an institution whose complicity in torture is well-documented —the response to our piece failed to challenge any of our arguments beyond reference to a now repeatedly criticised UN comment about close coordination between occupier and occupied. [24-26] His only other reference was to our vanished letter, with a link that leads nowhere. As we wrote in a reply to Hagay: “While our Correspondence may no longer be viewable on The Lancet’s website… the desperation that its forced disappearance implies and the easily disproved propaganda contained within his published response, suggest that fewer and fewer health professionals will be fooled going forward.” Our authors’ reply was rejected by The Lancet .

Yet, the story did not end here. We submitted a commentary to another Lancet journal whose editor-in-chief informed us that the Lancet group has recently been subjected to “very damaging boycotts” when publishing content critical of Israeli policies and practices without a “counterpoint from the Israeli perspective.” Since an attempt to solicit such a counterpoint had proved unsuccessful, the publication of our commentary could not go ahead. We feel that the lessons from our experience are clear: the Palestinian narrative can be voiced only when it is simultaneously disavowed, while the Israeli narrative—in this case the response from Hagay—can stand alone. This remarkable double standard confirms that so-called “balance” policies protect everyone but the oppressed.

Holmes et al. have observed that “Clinicians are uniquely positioned to respond to the social, political, and economic structures affecting our patients’ health.” [27] Yet, this new form of censorship perpetuates misdiagnosis of the root causes of Palestinian ill health, limiting clinicians’ ability to respond and advocate effectively. In our opinion, imposing censorship in academic journals as a direct result of external threats is a dangerous and totally unacceptable path. An urgent task for the academic community is to develop a strong position that can shield journals, their editors, and staff, by pushing back against the physicians and scientists who pressure journals to enforce censorship.

Despite ongoing silencing and a dedication to illusory “balance” in publishing on Palestine, health professionals are increasingly mobilising against structural violence targeting the Palestinian people as a whole. [28] We are encouraged by calls for decolonisation of scholarship on Palestine, evidence-based solidarity, and academic resistance to settler colonialism and apartheid. [29] As the pandemic continues to expose deep-rooted structural health inequities with devastating human consequences, it is imperative not only to address infringements on academic freedom, but to challenge the colonial power dynamics still prevailing in academic medicine.

Rania Muhareb is a Hardiman PhD Scholar at the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, a consultant with the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, and a Policy Member of Al-Shabaka – The Palestinian Policy Network.

Bram Wispelwey is a co-founder of Health for Palestine and medical director of 1for3. He teaches at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at Harvard Medical School.

Mads Gilbert is a specialist in anaesthesiology, senior consultant at the University Hospital of North Norway, and professor emeritus at the Arctic University of Norway in Tromsø. He has authored the books Eyes in Gaza (2009) and Night in Gaza (2014). Since 1981 he has worked with solidarity medicine in Lebanon and occupied Palestine and co-founded The Norwegian Aid Committee (NORWAC).

Competing interests : none declared.

References :

1. David Mills et al, “Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip” (The Lancet, 27 March 2020) <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620307303>. 2. OCHA oPt, “Response to the escalation in the oPt | Situation Report No. 1 (21-27 May 2021)” (27 May 2021) <https://www.ochaopt.org/content/response-escalation-opt-situation-report-no-1-21-27-may-2021> 3. OCHA oPt, “Gaza Strip: Escalation of hostilities 10-21 May 2021” (22 May 2021) <https://www.ochaopt.org/content/gaza-strip-escalation-hostilities-10-21-may-2021>. 4. OHCHR, “COVID-19: Israel has ‘legal duty’ to ensure that Palestinians in OPT receive essential health services – UN expert” (19 March 2020)<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25728&LangID=E>. 5. See, for example, Francesca P Albanese and Lex Takkenberg, Palestinian Refugees in International Law (OUP 2020) 342-375. 6. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287, Article 33. 7. Matthias Kennes, “Palestine is bearing the brunt of vaccination inequalities” (BMJ, 1 April 2021) <https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/01/palestine-is-bearing-the-brunt-of-vaccination-inequalities/>. 8. AHA, “Structural racism as a public health crisis” (14 November 2020) <https://sessions.hub.heart.org/home/video/21203056/structural-racism-as-a-public-health-crisis?utm_source=Scientific+Sessions&utm_campaign=3d57b385fc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_12_01_09_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6e5f148efb-3d57b385fc-48148289> 9. Julio Rosenstock et al, “Bringing closure: towards achieving a better understanding of Israel” (The Lancet, 31 July 2019) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)31760-X/fulltext#%20>. 10. Paola Manduca et al, “An open letter for the people in Gaza” (The Lancet, 23 July 2014) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext> 11. The Lancet, “Health in Israel” (The Lancet, 8 May 2017) <https://www.thelancet.com/series/health-in-israel>. 12. Michelle Morse and Bram Wispelwey, “Health equity in Israel” (The Lancet, 10 February 2018) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32171-2/fulltext>. 13. See, e.g., UN Human Rights Council, Report of the detailed findings of the independent international Commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (18 March 2019) UN Doc A/HRC/40/CRP.2 <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf>. 14. Diane Scott-Lichter and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors, White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (3rd edn, Wheat Ridge 2012) <http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf>. 15. Judith Butler, “Israel/Palestine and the paradoxes of academic freedom” (Radical Philosophy, January-February 2006) <https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/israelpalestine-and-the-paradoxes-of-academic-freedom>. 16. Bram Wispelwey et al, “Permission to Narrate a Pandemic in Palestine” (August 2020) XXVII [2] Middle East Policy <https://mepc.org/journal/permission-narrate-pandemic-palestine>. 17. Richard Horton, “The occupied Palestinian territory: peace, justice, and health” (The Lancet, 5 March 2009) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60100-8/fulltext>.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60100-8/fulltext 18. Ibid; Graham Watt et al, “Progress of The Lancet Palestinian Health Alliance” (The Lancet, 5 December 2013) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)62233-3/fulltext>. 19. Omar Karmi, “The Lancet censors Gaza health letter after pro-Israel pressure” (The Electronic Intifada, 1 October 2020) <https://electronicintifada.net/content/lancet-censors-gaza-health-letter-after-pro-israel-pressure/31371?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=758cda532e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e802a7602d-758cda532e-299169613>. 20. Orly Manor et al, “Palestinian and Israeli health professionals, let us work together!” (The Lancet Global Health, 1 September 2020) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30324-7/fulltext>. 21. Jonathan M Metzl and Helena Hansen, “Structural competency: theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality” (Social Science and Medicine, February 2014) <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24507917/>. 22. Budd Hall and Rajesh Tandon, “Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education” (2017) 1[1] Research for All 6-19 <http://unescochair-cbrsr.org/pdf/resource/RFA.pdf>. 23. Zinzi D Bailey et al, “How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities” (NEJM, 16 December 2020) <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2025396>. 24. Derek Summerfield, “The campaign about doctors and torture in Israel five years on” (BMJ, 9 July 2014) 349 <https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4386>. 25. Zion Hagay, “Israeli aid to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during the COVID-19 pandemic” (The Lancet, 26 September 2020) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31968-1/fulltext>. 26. Tamara Nassar, “Israel turns UN praise into propaganda” (The Electronic Intifada, 2 April 2020) <https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/tamara-nassar/israel-turns-un-praise-propaganda>. 27. Seth Holmes et al, “Misdiagnosis, Mistreatment, and Harm — When Medical Care Ignores Social Forces” (NEJM, 19 March 2020) 382[12] 1083-1086 <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1916269>. 28. APHA, “Palestine Health Justice Working Group Statement on Spring 2021 Attacks on Health in Palestine – Signatures of Support from Public Health Professionals” (accessed on 21 May 2021) <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdgvrw_2ux8wBExdI1rDVUuPSeD_rxxiOkNHys60pTGqamdwA/viewform?fbclid=IwAR0cWsFg8uNzDV99onq2jGtOeozud6ddsPIiG6XLR_b_VrY4HnY1huP___U>. 29. Palestine and Praxis, “Open Letter and Call to Action: Scholars for Palestinian Freedom” (accessed on 21 May 2021) <https://palestineandpraxis.weebly.com/>.

Information for Authors

BMJ Opinion provides comment and opinion written by The BMJ's international community of readers, authors, and editors.

We welcome submissions for consideration. Your article should be clear, compelling, and appeal to our international readership of doctors and other health professionals. The best pieces make a single topical point. They are well argued with new insights.

For more information on how to submit, please see our instructions for authors.

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

  • Live Chat Talk to a specialist
  • Self-service options
  • Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
  • Ultius 101 New client? Click here
  • Messenger  

International support numbers

Ultius

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

  • How it Works

Learn more about us

  • Future writers
  • Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample essay on censorship.

Ultius

Select network

This sample research paper reflects how government leaders and organizations have continued to use censorship in an effort to control people more effectively. The role censorship plays in governing people is truly something one must grasp to understand contemporary international and domestic politics. Whether you are a beginning student or a practicing professional in your field, this issue is important and one you should be as informed on as possible. This particular document is more suited to an introductory level discussion, but Ultius writers are ready and able to write on this subject up to the dissertation level .

Censorship: true governmental power?

Conservative views are a group of beliefs that have not experienced much in the way of change. Through the censorship of modern thought, expression and belief, conservative minds have been able to preserve their noticeably closed minded way of doing things. Censorship dates back as far as the age of antiquity and further with Socrates being one of the first notable figures to perish at its hands . Some have come to view the government as a savior for censoring what they consider wrong, while others see the government as overly authoritative in its attempt to pass judgement upon what is right or acceptable for the masses. While censorship is often viewed as a relatively moralistic venture, throughout history, it has actually been one of the key tools by which governments have maintained their control.

Censorship throughout history

Over the years the fight for censorship has proven to be dangerous for those who oppose it. History has shown that even though the government was created to help people, their views of what they consider "corrupt" or "profane" have frequently been called into question. According to BeaconForFreedom.org:

”Perhaps the most famous censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.”   (Newth).  

Many think that the government hides the truth behind the guise of protecting the innocence of youth, while others believe that the world is safe from the true evils that surrounds them. Some decisions that governments have made have left endless questions about why censorship ever came into existence. While government policies still insist that freedom of expression is an inherent human right, it seems to feel that it can place limitations upon how far this freedom extends. Whether it is music, newspapers, or media, the government will always play a hand in the extent to which free expression can be exercised, though the view of its use in America has changed as time has passed. 

Legal Issues with Censorship

While the censorship of music has cause the greatest stir in modern history, the age of censorship first appeared in print. In early years of the mass marketed press, owners wallowed in defeat if their newspapers were censored, often experiencing a shutdown of their businesses if censorship was employed. In America, the freedoms granted by the 1st amendment to the Constitution are often called into question by censorship. Though many elements of censorship have changed where the free press is involved, not all views of what should be shared is taken lightly. The censorship of the printed word doesn’t just affect newspapers read around the world. High school press papers are well known examples of censorship, due to the perceived "fragility" of young minds. This "preservation of youthful innocence" has long been a shield behind which the supporters of censorship have hidden. The decisions made may not be acceptable or fair to those who oppose them, but the protection of the innocence of youth will always be what is most important for many. 

Hazelwood school district

One example of censorship and the question of academic freedom was in the case of Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier. Students who worked for the school paper at Hazelwood East in 1983 thought that it would be a noble idea to dedicate certain parts of the paper to students who:

  • Were HIV positive
  • Were pregnant
  • Lived in homes affected by divorce

Once the school’s principal, Robert Reynolds, read the proofs of the articles, however, he wanted them removed from the paper. With this decision being made, the students in charge of the paper were outraged, accusing the principal of censorship of freedom of press. Even though the students who were interviewed in the articles were not named, the principal still felt that it was too much of a risk to take in allowing the newspaper be read by other students and teachers. Reynolds feared that the students who were talked about in these articles would be discovered and that it would have been a matter of time before harm came to them.

Need an opinion piece written on this subject? Our team has the skills and time to help you reclaim your schedule .

Censorship in the 21st century

Music has long been a target of censors and continues to be one in the 21st century. For many, censorship represents all that is wrong with the world and that secrets and hidden truths are concealed behind the walls of government. For many parts of the world, the eyes of the people are closed to the secrets carried in their government due to censorship which has been attributed to the concealment of:

  • Planned attacks
  • Embezzlement

Still other atrocities remain hidden behind the veil of censorship, keeping the public ignorant to them. For some, censorship can either hurt a community or raise its values to higher standards. However, censorship does protect the innocence in situations where safety can be compromised. In the Hazelwood School District case, it is conceivable that protection was needed due to harm that could have come to the students that were discussed in the school paper. The newest target of censorship is understandably the internet. There has long been a cry to the government to impose regulations on content available online .

Censorship may not always be fully understood or appreciated by those it is designed to "protect", but it is sometimes needed for the building of the core values of youth. Like any new policy, law, or rule, there are elements that are not liked or respected. Boundaries will always be tested with censorship, because some believe that no one, particularly the government, should be the judge of what is right and what is wrong beyond established law. Figures of authority will eternally strive to "protect the innocent" that they feel cannot judge or fend for themselves. However, there will always be those who stand in opposition. Certainly, it can be said that there are some things that we probably should not know or see due to its graphic nature and ability to disrupt the emotional well-being of our otherwise happy lives. The question that remains, however, is who gets to decide this?

Giving a speech on this subject? Ultius writers can help you prepare your presentation .

Works Cited

Newth, Mette. The Long History of Censorship . 2010. Norway. < http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475>.

Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics . New Jersey. Enslow, 1995.

Cite This Post

This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. However, we do require that you cite it properly using the citation provided below (in MLA format).

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius Blog . Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, 19 May 2013. Web. < https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html >

Thank you for practicing fair use.

This citation is in MLA format, if you need help with MLA format, click here to follow our citation style guide.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

  • Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 20 May. 2013. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2013, May 20). Sample Essay on Censorship. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. May 20, 2013 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

McAfee Secured

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

Ultius - Writing & Editing Help

  • Writer Options
  • Custom Writing
  • Business Documents
  • Support Desk
  • +1-800-405-2972
  • Submit bug report
  • A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

Download Ultius for Android on the Google Play Store

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

  • Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

Past Scholarship Winner - Shannon M.

  • Name Samantha M.
  • From Pepperdine University '22
  • Studies Psychology
  • Won $2,000.00
  • Award SEED Scholarship
  • Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

Research Paper

Censorship research paper.

censorship research paper example

This sample Censorship Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper , see the lists of research paper topics , and browse research paper examples .

The communication of information is central to many issues in global bioethics and so the justification for censorship is a key concern. This research paper describes prudential and epistemic frameworks for the justification of censorship and explores their utility in light of prominent controversies in global bioethics.

Introduction

Censorship limits the freedom to communicate ideas, information, or opinions, typically on the grounds that, in so doing, some harm will be prevented. In this research paper, the justification for censorship is discussed with reference to four case studies of global significance in Bioethics: the redaction of potentially harmful information in scientific publications; the questioning of health claims made by proponents of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM); the veto of direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines (DTCA); and the withholding of medical information by doctors to their patients under the doctrine of “therapeutic privilege.”

In each instance, censorship has either been proposed or enacted somewhere on the globe and generated great controversy. Competing claims are evaluated with a theoretical framework that advances both prudential and epistemic benchmarks for limiting communication. It is concluded that wide debate and deliberation guided by both standards is key to achieving justified decisions about the utility and warrant for censorship.

Examples Of Censorship In Global Bioethics

Harmful science.

In 2011, Dutch researchers developed a strain of the A/H5N1 “Avian Flu” virus that could undergo airborne transmission between ferrets (Herfst et al. 2012). Their finding was significant in that airborne transmission of the modified virus was also likely to be possible between humans. The virus, which kills up to 60 % of people who contract it, had previously only infected people in contact with the saliva, blood, or faeces of infected birds, usually chickens. Until the Dutch research, it was thought that human-to-human transmission of the A/H5N1 virus posed little threat.

The researchers submitted their findings to the prestigious journal Science. But the journal’s editors were concerned that, should the methods for producing the virus fall into the hands of terrorists or other malevolent individuals, any benefits of publication might be negated by the risks to public health. So the editors forwarded the manuscript to the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). The NSABB promptly requested that the researchers redact the methods section from their paper.

In response, and amid global controversy, the researchers imposed a voluntary moratorium on their work so the issue could be debated. In June 2012, more than a year later, and after a debate that generated intense media interest, the researchers lifted their moratorium and the paper was published in its entirety.

Dubious Health Claims

There was little dispute that the A/H5N1 research was sound. Censorship has, however, been central to recent debates about health information with doubtful scientific grounds. In Australia, in November 2013, the New South Wales Parliament launched an inquiry into “The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices.” The inquiry, ongoing at the time of writing, is focused on the regulatory power of the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) over health claims made by people and organisations not recognized as health service providers.

The inquiry follows a public warning issued by the HCCC about claims made by the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. The claims questioned the safety and effectiveness of a range of vaccinations, including Diphtheria-Tetanus Pertussis, offered to children under the National Immunization Program Schedule. The warning advises the claims are “misleading, misrepresented and… likely to detrimentally affect the clinical management or care of its readers” (Health Care Complaints Commission 2014).

The Chairperson has been careful to state the inquiry would not focus on the kinds of alternative health remedies that are used by many Australians. But a prominent lobby group Friends of Science in Medicine suggested in its submission that university courses in health disciplines with unproven scientific foundations such as CAM should be subject to censorship. The group singled out Chiropractic, Reiki, and Homeopathy for scrutiny on the basis that health-related university courses should be grounded in solid science.

Direct To Consumer Advertising Of Prescription Medicines (DTCA)

DTCA is another practice subject to censure due to concerns about information veracity. DTCA is permitted in the US and New Zealand but outlawed in all other countries. Regulation reflects concern that advertising increases inappropriate drug use with its attendant risks of toxicity and adverse reactions. The US has developed a complex framework to address these concerns that involves statutory regulation and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA also conducts its own research into how drug advertising can mislead via its Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP).

Several jurisdictions have challenged vetoes on DTCA on the basis that they impermissibly suppress free speech. In 2005, advertising agency CanWest mounted a legal challenge to Canada’s ban on DTCA, a process that ultimately foundered for lack of funds before any judicial finding. A number of unsuccessful attempts have also been launched to reverse the European Union’s ban on pharmaceutical advertising.

Therapeutic Privilege

Censorship is also at issue in the more personal realm of the doctor patient relationship. It has been a traditional “therapeutic privilege” of doctors to withhold information should they deem it harmful to patients. A common practice was to omit reference to certain risks of treatment. One surgeon defended his failure to disclose the risk of vocal cord paralysis to a patient considering thyroid surgery, saying, “were I to point out all the complications – or even half the complications – many people would refuse to have anything done, and therefore would be much worse off” (Buchanan 1978). The rise of respect for patient autonomy, and the view that competent patients make a valuable contribution to any assessment of their best interests, has seen this practice criticized in both the medical ethics literature and the courts.

Each of the cited examples highlights a tension between the value of free and open communication of information and the potential warrant for its suppression. To adjudicate the relevant competing arguments it is first necessary to provide some theoretical scaffolding.

Prudential And Epistemic Warrant For Censorship

A prudential standard for censorship.

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution which states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is possible to advance two broad and related principles upon which an interest in free speech might be legitimately overridden. The first justification is prudential. Speakers might permissibly be silenced if their message is likely to cause direct and obvious harm. This justification appeals to the Harm Principle of nineteenth century philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty Mill said that:

[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (Mill 2012, p. 11).

According to the Harm Principle, it would be wrong to restrain a person from broadcasting or receiving a communication “because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right” (Mill 2012, p. 11). To adopt this motivation would be to decide what is good for another, an exercise that Mill argued was bound to fail. For Mill, individuals are best placed to arbitrate on what is good for them and any third party charged with the same task is likely to get it wrong more often than not. As Mill put it, “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way” (Mill 2012, p. 14). On Mill’s utilitarian calculus proof of the moral wrong of third party intervention is that overall utility suffers.

According to the Harm Principle, individual liberty is justifiably limited only to prevent harm to others. In his decision in Schenck v. United States, American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. offered an example of censorship consistent with Mill’s rationale:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

A contemporary example of Mill’s philosophy in practice is the outlawing of holocaust denial in a number of European countries on the grounds that it may incite hatred and violence towards Jews.

This prudential standard for censorship must grapple with pluralism about how the good is defined. Subjective accounts of the good hold, consistent with Mill, that it is best achieved through fulfillment of an individual’s informed and rational preferences . But if “harm to others” is defined on this subjective standard, speech may be limited for what some consider only minor or idiosyncratic offence. It has been argued, for example, that “hate speech” legislation crosses this boundary when it outlaws insults directed at another’s race or religion.

Objective accounts hold that the good can be determined without reference to the particular values or preferences of individuals. Health and knowledge, for example, are proposed as objective goods. But censorship based on an objective standard of “harm to others” invites claims of unjustified paternalism; limiting people’s freedom for their own good despite their having the capacity to decide what is in their own interests. For example, some object to censorship of violent or sexual content in films on the grounds that others are simply not qualified to judge what is good for them.

An Epistemic Standard For Censorship

The second justification for overriding an interest in free speech is epistemic. On this view, a speech act might be legitimately silenced if it caused the listener to hold a belief with questionable epistemic grounds, for example, one that was unjustified, false, or both. Alvin Goldman has argued that people have “veritistic” interests, that is, interests in believing truthful information. Because false or misleading speech works against the veritistic interests of the audience their liberty to receive it might be legitimately constrained. Goldman calls this “epistemic paternalism”:

I shall think of communication controllers as exercising epistemic paternalism whenever they interpose their own judgment rather than allow the audience to exercise theirs (all with an eye to the audience’s epistemic prospects) (Goldman 1991).

Goldman argues that epistemic paternalism already operates in schools that limit the teaching of creationism, in courts when character evidence is ruled inadmissible on the basis that it might bias juries, and in commerce when statutory provisions prohibit false or misleading information in the advertising of goods and services. But Thomas Scanlon points out that charging governments with vetting information for veracity raises at least two problems. First, there is a potential slippery slope to censorship for political rather than epistemic purposes. Second, there is the difficulty of ensuring that the people tasked with vetting information are competent to do so (Scanlon 1972).

Epistemic paternalism also conflicts with the school of thought that only through the fullest airing of views can listeners grasp the truth. Mill, for example, argued that people are worse off for silencing opinion because, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 2012, p. 18). This “marketplace of ideas” theory was also championed by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. when he stated in Abrams v. United States that, “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

While both the prudential and epistemic benchmarks face objections each is central to a discussion of the permissibility of censorship in global bioethics.

A Censorship Framework For Global Bioethics

Truth was not at issue in the A/H5N1 paper submitted to Science because peer review established the methods were rigorous. Justification for censorship turned on the potential harms of publication and could, therefore, appeal to Mill’s Harm Principle. At first glance, the possibility that terrorists could use the information to modify then spread the virus to kill people supports censorship. But opposing arguments suggest that, on balance, the harms of censorship could be even greater.

For example, redacting the methods could prevent other scientists from making vaccines and treatments. As a result, any subsequent pandemic could be even more lethal than a terrorist attack. There is also a view that, irrespective of a censor’s best intentions, nature is far more likely to wreak havoc than a terrorist. Virus mutations in the natural environment can be as or more lethal than anything concocted in a laboratory. As virologist Dr Robert Webster put it, “Nature is the greatest bioterrorist…. The greater risk is what Mother Nature is doing out there every day” (Yang 2013). Moreover, the modified A/H5N1 virus had a lower mortality than the original version, plausibly lessening its overall threat.

It has also been suggested that most competent virologists could piece together the missing methods by “reverse engineering” the results data. Given that an aspiring terrorist would likely have significant expertise it is improbable that censoring only the methods section would limit access to the modified virus. And, concerns about civil liberties notwithstanding, greater surveillance measures in many nations arguably diminish the overall risk of terrorism anyway. A more general argument against science censorship is that the benefits of research are often unclear at the outset. Publication can deliver unanticipated windfalls as the information is disseminated and used by other investigators.

But in support of censorship, it was mooted that scientists developing vaccines could receive the necessary data by private channels, obviating the need to bring methods into the public realm. As noted, however, arguments favoring censorship were ultimately rejected and the paper was published in its entirety.

Global debate on the A/H5N1 data publication focused heavily on harmful consequences, showing how firmly embedded the utilitarian calculus is in public morality. The adjudication of the nature, probability, and severity of those harms was, in addition, exceedingly complex. It was, however, only through debate, deliberation, and the wide public airing of ideas that a determination on the permissibility of censorship was reached.

The ease with which health information can be disseminated over the Internet and the rising popularity of CAM raise questions about the justification for censoring health claims with questionable scientific grounds. Health makes a strong claim to appear on any list of so-called “objective” goods. John Rawls includes it on his list of “primary goods” which are “things which it is supposed a rational man wants whatever else he wants” (Rawls 1971, p. 79). It is uncontroversial, therefore, that should someone delay medical treatment or take an ineffective remedy based on misleading health information serious harms may ensue. And so a harm-based justification could plausibly be invoked to censor the information.

There are also good epistemic grounds to limit this type of communication. A cornerstone of contemporary medical ethics and law is that people give autonomous consent to treatment. Autonomy, or self-determination, requires that patients be in possession of material facts. Material facts are those, according to the judgment in the prominent Australian legal case Rogers v Whitaker, “that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to.” Health facts are material to patients and so misleading health information works against autonomous consent.

censorship research paper example

Should a CAM practitioner make an unproven health claim, then, a case for censorship might be made through appeal to both prudential and epistemic benchmarks. But an important retort appeals to an “epistemic pluralism” that legitimizes a variety of accounts of knowledge. Some argue, for example, that establishment medicine itself has, and still does, use treatments that remain unsupported by high grade evidence. Indeed the very term “evidence-based” medicine implies the existence of medicine that lacks evidence. By contrast, the idea of “evidence-based physics” seems tautologous given the central place of evidence in that discipline.

On this view, establishment medicine is given a questionable epistemic privilege over less mainstream disciplines. While the practices of CAM might seem scientifically doubtful now perhaps, like many medical therapies, they will come to be supported by evidence over time? Perhaps, also, people ascribe worth to knowledge in virtue of their idiosyncratic values. If the philosophy and proposed mechanisms of Reiki, for example, accord with an individual’s values is that not reason to permit its free use? Many religions offer guidance to adherents without fear of censorship due to inadequate evidence. It would seem counterintuitive, for example, to prevent a Buddhist from accessing spiritual guidance on the grounds there is not enough evidence for reincarnation.

Moreover, many therapies under the CAM umbrella will offer benefit via the powerful placebo response. This is especially true of drugs that act on the central nervous system like pain killers or antidepressants. Should CAM generate a similar effect this might also support their free promulgation. Perhaps, too, doubts about the claims made by CAM are best aired in the marketplace of ideas. Accepting this theory, the community will more likely reach truthful conclusions about the effects of CAM with free and open transmission of information, not censorship.

There are a number of responses to these claims. First, rigorous evidence-testing frameworks like the Cochrane Collaboration have led establishment medicine to jettison many practices that did not withstand scrutiny. For example, a number of reviews failed to find benefit from steam inhalation in croup, a common upper airway infection in children. Despite steam being integral to the management of croup since the nineteenth century, many centers no longer recommend it.

Establishment medicine adopts a hierarchy of evidence from meta-analyses of controlled trials down to consensus expert agreement. Given the willingness of orthodox medicine to reject treatments that do not pass evidential muster, ought not CAM to do the same? Indeed, there are major efforts within CAM to develop a similar evidence base. So why not require CAM practitioners to comply with the same evidential standards as establishment medicine, under the auspices of regulatory bodies like the FDA?

Second, if CAM treatments work primarily via the placebo response there is a strong case such information is material for people considering them. Respect for autonomy suggests reliance on placebo responses, and the absence of data for any primary physiological mechanism, ought to be made clear. Some might protest that such transparency would negate the placebo response but placebo responses can still occur even when explained to patients (Kaptchuk et al. 2010). Moreover, information about the placebo component of responses to active drug therapies is widely available, yet the response still occurs.

A third concern is that, while the theory of opening the market to ideas has entered the vernacular, it is not at all clear the concept withstands scrutiny. Alvin Goldman and economist James Cox have argued the theory lacks force on a number of grounds (Goldman and Cox 1996). They point out that no detailed argument has been adduced as to how free market mechanisms would actually advance truth. They observe that it is often the most influential opinions that gain acceptance in the marketplace, yet it is not obvious that such influence attaches to truthful claims. Moreover, they argue, the commercial market is not really “free” but rests, in fact, on a substantial infrastructure of regulation, for example, tort law and property rights. Must one have a specific degree of freedom in the ideas market to promote truth and, if so, how much?

They also argue against the notion that truth emerges from markets analogous to the way adaptive tendencies prevail in Darwinian evolution by “survival of the fittest.” Market competition rewards efficient production and so, if truth happens not to be efficient it may not emerge. And given the importance of consumer preferences the authors opine that “If consumers do not value truth very much… perfect competition will efficiently ensure that they don’t get very much truth as compared with other goods” (Goldman and Cox 1996, p. 18).

Indeed, other psychological theories support the idea that some propositions gain acceptance not because they are true, but because they are entertained first. Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert has argued that propositions undergo a default acceptance and are only rejected after counter arguments are developed and considered by the actor (Gilbert 1991). Rejection, however, requires a motivation or ability that is frequently lacking. The path of least cognitive resistance is often acceptance of the proposition.

A variety of cognitive biases are co-conspirators in this process. “Mere exposure” suggests that things encountered more frequently engender a positive attitude in the viewer. So, arguments may become more palatable simply in virtue of being aired repeatedly. The “availability heuristic” refers to our tendency to estimate the frequency of an event by how easily we can access instances of similar events in memory. Availability is biased when we easily access instances that are especially graphic or salient. Sensational press reports of solitary claims that, for example, vaccinations cause autism, makes it easier to recall those claims. People may, as a result, believe the risk to be more widely accepted than it really is.

Epistemic pluralism must also contend with issues at the intersection of the private and public realms. Universities are frequently subsidized to some extent by public monies, and so their course offerings are not merely services offered by a private business. Taxpayers expect due diligence and oversight of government expenditure and so there is plausibly a lower threshold for censoring publicly funded health courses with a dubious evidential base.

Debate over potential censorship of questionable health claims is ongoing but both prudential and epistemic considerations will play a key role in its outcome.

Use of prescription drugs requires a doctor’s authorization in the form of a written “prescription.” Prescription drugs attain that status because they are potentially habit forming, are associated with significant side effects or toxicity, or require monitoring by a health professional to ensure safety. DTCA bans reflect the view that, because advertisers are motivated to persuade rather than inform, ads will be biased, misleading, imbalanced, or false. The fear is that consumers may come to want inappropriate drugs or have unrealistic expectations of benefit and safety, undermining their autonomy and exposing them to risk.

Does DTCA actually harm consumers? While there are limited data there are reasons for concern. First, it is clear that DTCA generates a significant return on investment for drug companies by increasing the use of advertised drugs. Yet, an FDA survey of doctors found 75 % thought DTCA caused patients to think “drugs work better than they actually do” (Aikin et al. 2004, p. 69) and 69 % said DTCA caused patients to want advertised drugs over any others, however effective. Moreover, annual adverse drug events reported to the FDA more than doubled, to 482,000, in the decade after DTCA was legalized in 1997 (Food and Drug Administration 2007). These figures suggest significant adverse outcomes flowing from DTCA.

DTCA proponents mount a number of responses to these concerns (Ventola 2011). They claim that by creating awareness of diseases and their treatment DTCA encourages more people to visit the doctor. Earlier diagnosis and treatment lead to better health outcomes and lowered healthcare costs. DTCA has been argued to increase compliance with medications through a “reminder” effect. It is also argued to reduce stigma associated with some disorders, for example, mental illness as well as driving down drug costs and thus widening access. Despite these claims, however, a recent meta-analysis found no evidence that DTCA led to improved public health (Gilbody et al. 2005).

Adjudicating the competing claims is an invidious task. But given only the US and New Zealand permit DTCA, there is reason to think many countries believe the harms outweigh benefits and censor DTCA on prudential grounds.

Might there also be epistemic warrant to censor DTCA? It is central to this question to determine if DTCA misleads. In the US, advertising of prescription drugs is subject to a raft of statutes and regulations that caution against false or misleading claims and mandate balanced disclosure of the risks and benefits of the advertised drug. These strictures include the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the US Code of Federal Regulations. The FDA also has an entire unit, the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP), dedicated to ensuring that DTCA complies with these requirements. The OPDP also conducts its own innovative research into some of the more subtle effects of advertising.

Yet, as the FDA study cited earlier found (Aikin et al. 2004), many DTCA viewers subsequently approach their doctors with unrealistic expectations of an advertised drug’s effects. Consumer psychology research sheds some light on why FDA regulation may be inadequate to protect DTCA viewers. This research suggests advertising persuades by means other than the explicit drug claims that are subject to FDA scrutiny.

Music and imagery may generate positive attitudes and beliefs independent of a commercial’s factual content (Biegler and Vargas 2013). Music and imagery have been termed the “nonpropositional” content of ads, because they can persuade without making specific truth-assessable claims. Some argue that non-propositional content ought to attract the same regulatory scrutiny as explicit claims about drugs (Biegler and Vargas 2013). The capacity of non-propositional content in DTCA to influence viewer beliefs would seem to make it a legitimate target for the epistemic ally minded censor.

But censorship of non-propositional content in DTCA raises a problem of consistency. Would this mandate censoring a range of other advertising that potentially misleads through non-propositional content? One way to resolve the difficulty is to focus on the importance of material facts. Failure to accurately grasp material information is detrimental to autonomous choices. While drug information is likely to be material to most, so too are facts about, for example, health insurance and financial advice. So a case might be made that non-propositional content be vetted in advertisements for such products, while leaving products with lesser capacity for harm, dishwashing detergent for example, free from censorship.

Whether a prudential standard justifies bans on DTCA is still widely debated. Research on subtle persuasion in advertising is, however, generating findings that inform the epistemic benchmark that ought to govern DTCA permissibility.

Medical practice has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Traditionally, many doctors adopted a stance of “beneficent authoritarianism” (Pellegrino and Thomasma 1988, p. 5). On this principle, doctors knew what was best for patients and could withhold information about treatments they did not favor or about adverse effects that might cause anxiety. This practice is now widely seen as unjustified paternalism. It is, however, worth exploring if there is any justification for doctors to engage in self-censorship.

Contemporary thinking is that people with requisite competence are well placed to understand information about their medical condition and its treatment. Disclosure of material information about proposed treatments and their alternatives enables autonomous medical choices. The link between autonomy and the promotion of individual interests supports the claim that disclosure is essential if patents are to make choices that are in their best interests. Given the doctor’s duty of care to act in the patient’s best interests there is further compelling reason to fully discuss treatment options with patients.

In the thyroid surgery example introduced earlier the doctor might appeal to Mill’s Harm Principle to justify withholding information about the complication of vocal cord paralysis. The doctor might claim that disclosing side effects could make the patient anxious and refuse a beneficial treatment. The claim is not implausible. Imagine a related example of a person considering open heart surgery. Wishing to be fully informed the person watches a video of the surgery, becomes very anxious, and refuses the operation. This seems like an unrealistic emotional response that could harm through the omission of necessary treatment. Reason, perhaps, to censor the video.

It might be objected that such reactions are unlikely. Moreover, anxiety is commonplace in the consulting room and is arguably better managed by exploring the true nature of the fear rather than censoring the worrying information. On this objection, self-censorship remains an example of unjustified paternalism. But, while doctors may lack justification for self-censorship on prudential grounds there does seem scope for self-censorship on epistemic grounds.

Doctors typically speak to patients in layman’s terms so that medical information can be understood more easily. A urinary tract infection might be caused by the bacterium Escherichia Coli but the doctor will often use the simpler term “bug.” In the same vein “melaena” becomes “blood in the stool,” “pre-syncope” translates to “dizziness,” and “microcytic anaemia” is “low blood count.” This self-censorship is arguably permissible under epistemic paternalism if it promotes autonomy through a clearer grasp of material facts. But it might be countered that, should patients be supplied with information in its unadulterated form, they could better seek out alternative opinions from health professionals or through their own research. Perhaps the best option, then, is to also offer patients copies of investigation reports and medical summaries.

Doctors ought, however, to be aware of more subtle ways their methods of disclosure may influence patients. How doctors frame information can have marked effects on its interpretation. For example, patients favor a surgery far more if it is said to have a 90 % survival rate instead of a 10 % mortality rate, despite the statistics being identical. It is conceivable, too, that doctors might choose the frame that favored their preferred course of treatment. To obviate this effect, presenting information in both frames may be best.

Contemporary reasoning finds little support for arguments that doctors can permissibly self-censor on prudential grounds under the principle of therapeutic privilege. Self-censorship on epistemic grounds seems more defensible if it enhances patients’ understanding. However, given the potential utility of precise medical information, there is also a case to provide patients with unabridged medical summaries.

The high value attached to free speech makes it the default assumption in cases of potential censorship. The burden of proof for a warrant to censor information resides with the aspiring censor. There are two plausible benchmarks for justifying censorship. A prudential standard holds that censorship of information is justified should significant harms be prevented as a result. The standard is, however, vulnerable to questions about the nature and degree of the harms that might warrant censorship.

An epistemic standard holds that communication may be limited should greater truth possession result. The epistemic standard must be defended against questions about the competence of those vetting information and their potentially manipulative reasons for doing so. It must also contend with an epistemic pluralism that accords legitimacy to a variety of accounts of knowledge.

Whether censorship ought to prevail in the cited controversies in global bioethics is a question of the degree to which it both prevents real harm and enhances actual understanding. Ultimately, that question is best answered through wide community debate and deliberation grounded in a full airing of the competing arguments.

Bibliography :

  • Aikin, K. J., Swasy, J. L., & Braman, A. C. (2004). Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promotion of prescription drugs-summary of FDA survey research results. Food and Drug Administration Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommuni cationsResearch/UCM152860.pdf
  • Biegler, P., & Vargas, P. (2013). Ban the sunset? Nonpropositional content and regulation of pharmaceutical advertising. American Journal of Bioethics, 13(5), 3–13.
  • Buchanan, A. E. (1978). Medical paternalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7(4), 370–390.
  • Food and Drug Administration. (2007). Improving public health through human drugs: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://www.fda.gov/down loads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/ UCM121704.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  • Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.
  • Gilbody, S., Wilson, P., & Watt, I. (2005). Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: A systematic review. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(4), 246–250.
  • Goldman, A. I. (1991). Epistemic paternalism: Communication control in law and society. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(3), 113–131.
  • Goldman, A. I., & Cox, J. C. (1996). Speech, truth, and the free market for ideas. Legal Theory, 2, 1–32.
  • Health Care Complaints Commission. (2014). Public statement – Warning about the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. http://www.hccc. nsw.gov.au/Hearings—decisions/Public-statements-andwarnings/Public-statement—warning-about-the-Austra lian-Vaccination-skeptics-Network–Inc—AVN——for merly-known-as-Australian-Vaccination-Network-Inc-. Accessed 30 Oct 2014
  • Herfst, S., Schrauwen, E. J., Linster, M., Chutinimitkul, S., de Wit, E., Munster, V. J., .. . Fouchier, R. A. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science, 336(6088), 1534–1541.
  • Kaptchuk, T. J., Friedlander, E., Kelley, J. M., Sanchez, M. N., Kokkotou, E., Singer, J. P., .. . Lembo, A. J. (2010). Placebos without deception: A randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One, 5(12), e15591.
  • Mill, J. (2012). On Liberty. Simon and Brown. www. simonandbrown.com
  • Pellegrino, E. D., & Thomasma, D. C. (1988). For the patient’s good: The restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Scanlon, T. (1972). A theory of freedom of expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2), 204–226.
  • Ventola, C. L. (2011). Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: Therapeutic or toxic? Pharmacy & Therapeutics, 36(10), 669–684.
  • Yang, J. (2013). Mutant virus sparks bioethics debate. Toronto Star. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/10/mutant_virus_sparks_bioethics_debate.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2014.
  • Greene, J. A., & Herzberg, D. (2010). Hidden in plain sight marketing prescription drugs to consumers in the twentieth century. American Journal of Public Health, 100(5), 793–803.
  • Selgelid, M. (2007). A tale of two studies: Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 35–43.
  • How to Write a Research Paper
  • Research Paper Topics
  • Research Paper Examples

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a  custom research paper  on any topic and get your high quality paper at  affordable price .

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

censorship research paper example

Related Posts

Argumentative Research Paper Examples

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Removal Request

Finished papers: 483

This paper is created by writer with

ID 287174183

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

submit your paper

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Argumentative essay on online shopping, my statement essay samples, free research paper about forms of terrorism in america, free sailfin molly fish project report sample, poetry essay sample, good case study on tests for vanishing twin syndrome determination, free using language of the moving image to convey an idea theme essay top quality sample to follow, enacting social change bullying example critical thinking by an expert writer to follow, learn to craft research papers on ethics in healthcare research paper with this example, perfect model essay on problem definition 4, a level essay on enterprise and industrial relations for free use, tb disaster plan type to use as a writing model, the effect of chiaroscuro in artistic interpretation in photography literature review sample, free essay about poverty, confederation essays, ratification essays, copenhagen essays, coils essays, arraignment essays, conflict resolution essays, resolutions essays, entire community essays, profiles essays, ethnographic essays, tskhinvali essays, abkhazian essays, jim harrison essays, the perks of being a wallflower essays, karpov essays, knoxville essays, ferrum essays, elephantiasis essays, borlak essays, protease inhibitor essays, homeodomain essays, bzip essays, blanchet essays, bulla essays, simar essays, rgen essays, fritz research papers, plantations research papers, panic attacks research papers.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

  • Undergraduate
  • High School
  • Architecture
  • American History
  • Asian History
  • Antique Literature
  • American Literature
  • Asian Literature
  • Classic English Literature
  • World Literature
  • Creative Writing
  • Linguistics
  • Criminal Justice
  • Legal Issues
  • Anthropology
  • Archaeology
  • Political Science
  • World Affairs
  • African-American Studies
  • East European Studies
  • Latin-American Studies
  • Native-American Studies
  • West European Studies
  • Family and Consumer Science
  • Social Issues
  • Women and Gender Studies
  • Social Work
  • Natural Sciences
  • Pharmacology
  • Earth science
  • Agriculture
  • Agricultural Studies
  • Computer Science
  • IT Management
  • Mathematics
  • Investments
  • Engineering and Technology
  • Engineering
  • Aeronautics
  • Medicine and Health
  • Alternative Medicine
  • Communications and Media
  • Advertising
  • Communication Strategies
  • Public Relations
  • Educational Theories
  • Teacher's Career
  • Chicago/Turabian
  • Company Analysis
  • Education Theories
  • Shakespeare
  • Canadian Studies
  • Food Safety
  • Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
  • Movie Review
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Application Essay
  • Article Critique
  • Article Review
  • Article Writing
  • Book Review
  • Business Plan
  • Business Proposal
  • Capstone Project
  • Cover Letter
  • Creative Essay
  • Dissertation
  • Dissertation - Abstract
  • Dissertation - Conclusion
  • Dissertation - Discussion
  • Dissertation - Hypothesis
  • Dissertation - Introduction
  • Dissertation - Literature
  • Dissertation - Methodology
  • Dissertation - Results
  • GCSE Coursework
  • Grant Proposal
  • Marketing Plan
  • Multiple Choice Quiz
  • Personal Statement
  • Power Point Presentation
  • Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
  • Questionnaire
  • Reaction Paper

Research Paper

  • Research Proposal
  • SWOT analysis
  • Thesis Paper
  • Online Quiz
  • Literature Review
  • Movie Analysis
  • Statistics problem
  • Math Problem
  • All papers examples
  • How It Works
  • Money Back Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • We Are Hiring

Media Censorship, Research Paper Example

Pages: 13

Words: 3454

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Media censorship as a worldwide phenomenon has foreseen information outlets for ages. A primary basis for censorship is maintaining an orderly nation, while the underlying intention is to keep the people unaware of the data likely to threaten the governance. The global internet connection in the current century permits the passage of information across and beyond boundaries in a limited amount of time. Therefore, many media users rely on the network for many messages. According to history, accessing news has never been as easy as it is currently. In European nations, the press in the 18 th era was under the draconian leads of suppression (Miao et al., 2021). The 19th era gradually reduced censorship because of people’s demands. However, dictatorial and strongly centralized administrations currently employ censorship openly or subtly to restrict those who oppose the administrations in different countries. Private reporters, technicians, and journalists constantly pass information using social media websites, blogs, and reports to curb the information coup. To survive, governments employ strict network surveillance tools that conveniently ban websites and intelligently filter the data. Therefore only the preferred news is permitted to pass through the media firewalls (Ng et al., 2021). In addition, the government detains citizens and tech-savvy who access the disregarded websites to instill fear, intimidation, and persecution. Since the media does not function to bring an unlimited or filtered message to the people, they mustn’t trade on selling unreasonable information that can threaten citizens, races, or even religions. The literature review focuses on the role of media censorship in information coup. It will also evaluate the role of media in cultivating tolerance and responsibility to the people at large.

Media Censorship

Introduction

The use of censorship is to legally regulate and suppress any form of information that can result in jeopardy of the state order. In the past, censorship has been applied to manage social morals and the awareness of a state’s citizens. It has also been employed as a tool against government opposition. Chang et al. (2022) mention that Socrates was among the first to suffer censorship’s consequences. The victim was penalized for consuming poison for his regard of nonconformist theologies in 399 BC. Therefore, the roots of censorship can be said to have originated in Rome, but the censor office was formed in 443 BC. China implemented its first restriction policy in the 300AD (AlAashry, 2020). Conventionally, administration controls evaluate newspapers, articles, and books, among other sources, before they are published to remove questionable concerns.

Freedom Versus Accountability

Anti-suppression activists recite refrains against the limitation of the freedom of speech, expression, and information restriction. Autocratic leaders and developing democracies conceal media censorship to maintain law and order, while the actual intent is to sustain social ignorance. Knight and Tribin (2022) state that the third president of the U.S. reunited because the independent and free news media favored him. In 1807, the president wrote to Thomas Seymour. In the letter, he stated that he cooperatively offered himself as a participant in a significant test to prove that propaganda of the press can never bring down a government that performs with honesty and mutual agreement. The test expected the world to show the false ploy that freedom of the media is contrary to an orderly government.

Alsubaie et al. (2021) also confirm the significance of the press while stating that the media is crucial to a free administration and a society that regards different perceptions, intellectual and creative ferment. It is also essential in cultivating a vital subject and ensuring a self-aware citizen. Autocracy employs brutal force to minimize or close the uncooperative press. It also sends the media outlets to exile, detain or execute the press individuals. With the notion of maintaining law and order, dictatorial administrations ravage news and implement censorship. As a result, only the minority individuals living in developed democracies can use different and independent data sources. The press contributes significantly to promoting democracy and transparency in society. In addition, it plays a crucial part in eliminating global illiteracy.

Research Questions

  • How is information subjected to coup through media censorship
  • How is the media responsible for cultivating tolerance and responsibility to the citizens

The methodology used in the literature review include reports from peer-review article and journals of previous studies. The sources include information on the history of censorship and the example of victims of censorship. Understanding the definition of media and censorship was crucial to determining the required research sources. In addition, there was the scrutiny of information on the research topic concerning the publication time. Finding efficient data on the existing advancement and censorship trends in different countries and their effect worldwide is critical. It also helped track the progress of anti-censorship movements and law enforcement efforts to help address the phenomenon of media censorship. The sources for the research were not more than five years after publication. The survey was explicitly based on reviewed articles, reports, and journals. It was essential to obtain accurate and approved information on the media censorship topic. More than 25 sources were critically scrutinized to select the most relevant to the study and had enough evidence of the topic. Besides, of the 25 sources, only ten were considered to contain the required data on the topic.

Nevertheless, there were difficulties in evaluating the sources as several had data on the topic and publication year yet unreliable numerical data on similar assessments. It made it more challenging to discover accurate data among the sources. It was time-consuming and tiresome to verify their data. On the contrary, the literature review proved to be the best method because it gave a deeper assessment of the problem of the study. It gave detailed data and historical encounters with the challenge of censorship and freedom of expression in the media. It also presented methods employed to fight the problem. Ethical considerations in the research were first considered, and anonymity was maintained during the exploration. Similarly, evaluations were made on the sources to select the ones that complied with ethical considerations during their examinations.

Literature review

The most chronic assaults on freedom of expression are experienced in nations with challenging democracies, new or without democracies. While half of the globe’s populace lacks an independent media outlet, nations with top media censorship include Cuba, China, Iran, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. Other nations with press restrictions are Ethiopia and North Korea. According to studies, the accounts of the press trace back to the newsletters that were evident in some Indian regions during the 16 th century. Since then, Switzerland led by establishing the first news source in 1610, marking the beginning of a chain of responses (Golovchenko, 2022). Other European nations followed, such as England, France, Denmark, and Poland, followed afterward in that order.

Nevertheless, the ruling administration did not consider the rapid development of information channels and open access to all information types. To cut the dissemination of the free message, Britain introduced the Licensing Act in 1962 (Ng et al., 2021). The act remained effective until after a great plague. In addition, Germany cut its press effectively using censorship and trade limitations. It also claimed that there were limited papers to print the news. The citizens demanded a free media outlet, and a domino decree was passed in the European nations. Sweden afterward abolished the restricting policies by passing its law to guarantee free press activities.

Upon the first amendment of the U.S constitution, freedom of speech and expression was ensured, and France afterward put a declaration of the right of citizens in 1789. The bill of rights addressed the free expression of thoughts and perceptions as one of the most valuable rights of citizens. It also expressed their rights to write and publish freely. In most western nations, state-controlled censorship was banned in the 19 th and 20 th centuries (Golovchenko, 2022). However, colonial administrations such as Russia and Britain practice extreme censorship over their regimes. In addition, the Soviet Union suspended the most extended censorship duration in the 20 th century.

Since the restriction was initially disregarded, administrations devised other ways of instilling censorship. For instance, legislative acts on state security, offensive acts, and libel policies were implemented to limit freedom of expression. In particular, the libel policies overcame the censorship policies and freely conducted a similar role of censorship because it had an expansive interpretation. Currently, the laws are still employed to harass and persecute artists and press individuals who question the pretexts of state security and blasphemy. AlAashry (2020) states that censorship has not been addressed for more than 2000 years, and even those administrations in stable democracies harass the press today.

Media Censorship In Times Of War And Conflict

The first mode of action against a threat in the authority of a state is the application of censorship to ensure an information coup. The imminent threats include but are not limited to rebellion or resistance. The media outlets are significant in any misunderstanding and are also the first war victim. To promote social ignorance during conflicts, the press experiences restrictions through modes such as suppression of the media personnel and the state taking charge of the news being released. For instance, during the First World War in 1914, the release of data regarding state defense was banned through the Espionage Act (Ng et al., 2021). The Espionage Act was amended to include other offenses, such as disloyalty to the United States administration and abusive language. All nations participating in the conflict during the Second World War blocked the media outlets. During that time, militaries that participated in the war also restricted the information through letters channeled by soldiers. They removed the enemy and could undoubtedly utilize any data.

In addition, even the conventional indications of hugs or kisses were edited as they were perceived to signify a code potentially. The United States and British press, among other offices, still practice self-censorship in times of misunderstanding. In addition, the United States censorship administration provides the code of conflict standards for the American press. In 2011, the Arab rebellion can be used as an example of how resilience and postponed efforts of the media and independent journalists can overwhelm the information blockage on the network (AlAashry, 2020). In that year, the military personnel and the nation regulated the information released by the media. As a result, the country’s citizens received contaminated information from state-sponsored sources. Nevertheless, the media could be conveniently managed since the connection in the African nations had already made it easier to access news statewide and globally.

A similar case was evident in the fight between Russia and Ukraine and the Hurricane, which attacked the state of Florida in the United States in 2022 (Corduneanu-Huci & Hamilton, 2022). Social media not only permitted access to data and news but also enabled the freedom of expression. When the press could not access the locations due to suppression from the state authorities, unanimous people uploaded images and videos of the present state of events in Russia and Ukraine. Perhaps, the uploaded pictorials were the only accessed proof of the ongoing wars in the nations. Therefore, the internet contributed significantly to linking people and ensuring the flow of information during events.

Electronic Monitoring Of The Media

The media offers the fastest channel for delivering and receiving information or material without identifying whether the data could be intended to track activities. Similarly, the media can outdo the print methods, radios, and televisions regarding the capacity of availability to approximately all people with access to online channels. Lane et al. (2021) assert that the development of the internet foresaw the fall of censorship. Hypothetically, the current technological improvement makes it much impossible, if not more challenging, to censor the data available for internet use. However, when pressing the internet realm, digital restriction followed with methods such as sorting, hacking, delaying, and redirecting; the technically skilled activists studied disseminating data through the media and overcame the most challenging censorship methods.

The government, however, struck them with the skill of surveying online matters and retransmitted the flow of messages and information. Press events are being monitored, and unruly press individuals are being blocked or tracked down. What follows is the harassment, beatings, and imprisonment of these individuals. In addition, these press individuals are forced to participate in lawful wars, and intimidation of potential administration-supported litigation is used as a restraint. Nations such as China, Russia, Venezuela, and Australia are among the areas with formalized electronic monitoring. The states restrict press freedom among other media outlets (AlAashry, 2020). They censor access to social data by employing taxations on the users and owners of the media. Moreover, they also ban agendas and suspend media licenses.

According to an editor in Venezuela, the methods of media censorship in the 21 st century include the state administrations purchasing the new source and using the newspaper as a delegate, litigating the journalists for libel, eavesdropping in the media communications and publishing it before them in a government media. Miao et al. (2021) confirm that media censorship is contagious. The less stable democratic nations such as Hungary and developing countries worldwide are increasingly employing the protocol of media censorship used by autocratic states. Golovchenko (2022) states that the information available in the media is being suppressed either openly or subtly in nations such as Russia and Ukraine with the notion of fighting propaganda through media censorship. According to studies in multiple countries, the administrations, in the broader view, appear as democrats who embrace subtle censorship (Golovchenko, 2022). It is done through acts such as subcontracting, suspending funds, obtaining annoying information, and planning transfers of the anti-censorship journalists.

Approximately 24% of internet users are China residents, which is about 3 billion people. In addition, the United States comprises about 12% of internet users (Ng et al., 2021). China is among the leading censorship governments facilitating effective firewalls to suppress inappropriate content and unfamiliar websites. According to González-Quiñones et al. (2019), the Chinese state’s use of monitoring procedures and suppression methods is not only intelligent but also successful in convincing the citizens that other people are not monitoring them. However, in other parts of china, such as Hong Kong, conventional means are being used to censor the media by starting a war against the media journalists and editors, instilling too many withdrawing ads on the media, and promoting cyber-attacks, among others.

Press Freedom and Responsibility

Corduneanu-Huci & Hamilton (2022) argue that magazines can be split into two: those that sell illogic sensation and those that release educational information and meaningful commentary on vital topics. Generally, the media may contain an overlap of informative and sensational data; thus, it may be challenging to differentiate between precise and inappropriate pretexts. According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the country is prohibited from suppressing freedom of expression and speech (Ng et al., 2021). Freedom of expression entails all kinds of press, notwithstanding whether it releases pornography or inappropriate images. It happens to be a comprehensive investment with social media as its primary source of dissemination. With a reliable network that permits anonymous use of inconvenient websites, learners and youngsters can access damaging content from the network. The assurance of anonymity results in opportunities for the young generation to access pornographic content legally prohibited for children (Knight and Tribin, 2022). To address the concern of inappropriate content to children, the United States Congress decreed the Communications Decency Act to prevent uploading patently abusive items on the internet that children can access. According to the act, the violators are sentenced to one year in prison with a fine of 250 000 dollars (Ng et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, the country’s Supreme Court found the act to be unlawful. Instead, the court barred the act and encouraged parents to access effective software from the website. The software was projected to restrict children from accessing inappropriate content upon installation on children’s devices. The United States Congress suggested another bill to safeguard youngsters from accessing inappropriate websites. The Children’s Internet Protection Act was implemented in 2000 (Knight and Tribin, 2022). It required public learning centers and libraries with access to the internet to install the software to filter harmful content. While the act is still influential today, it is only used in public schools and libraries that acquire discounts through plans that facilitate the affordability of particular communication amenities and items, such as the E-rate plans.

In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission provided policies for the CIPA enactment. In addition, it was also published and updated in 2001. The guidelines included financial assistance for learning institutions and libraries connected to their certification (AlAashry, 2020). The policies ascertained that the CIPA had successfully utilized the decreed internet safety rule. According to the procedure, the installation of protective software on devices was used by the youngsters to suppress or filter access to inappropriate depictions conveniently. An amendment to the Protecting Children Act in the 21 st Century Act was enacted in 2008 (Ng et al., 2021). The law stated that the institutions under the CIPA were required to provide guiding learners on the appropriate internet conduct. The conduct included associating with other people on the media sites and in the video conference rooms. It also included creating awareness of cyberbullying acts and reactions. As a result, the CIPA was responsible for two additional certification necessities, including surveillance of internet activities for children and creating awareness by guiding the children concerning explicit internet conduct (Knight and Tribin, 2022). However, the random safety of media under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is not ensured worldwide. Some nations demand obligations from the press and the new platforms. For instance, in its 10th article on human rights, the Council of Europe states that media outlets are accountable for their roles and responsibilities.

Limitations of the Literature Review

The study involved a global view of how information is subjected to coup through media censorship and the responsibility of the media to nurture tolerance and accountability to its citizens. Further research should be done to evaluate the perception of media censorship from a specific country.

In summary, studies suggest that censorship of media information can worsen the situation of a country in an attempt to maintain law and order while depriving the public of access to information to prevent threats to the administration. Prohibiting the press from freedom of speech and expression can encourage the media and the citizens to seek other ways of being informed. As a result, it can result in the development of a new independent society who do not trust its leaders. On the other hand, while offensive expression and mythical perceptions are perhaps non-optimal ways of expression and passing data, ways of addressing the acts and notions may result in further harm even when the press has good intentions. The press should therefore be responsible for cultivating tolerance and responsibility for its citizen’s buy by ensuring the use of appropriate languages in addressing their concern in the media. Social media administrators can also help maintain law and order in countries by creating awareness of proper ways of expression to air their challenges. Censorship can be employed to prevent children from accessing inappropriate website content. It can also be genuinely used to maintain an orderly nation rather than keeping the people unaware of the data likely to threaten the governance.

AlAashry, M. S. (2022). A critical analysis of journalists’ freedom of expression and access to information while reporting on COVID-19 issues: a case of selected Arab countries. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society . https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miral-Sabry-Alashry/publication/362631063_A_critical_analysis_of_journalists’_freedom_of_expression_and_access_to_information_while_reporting_on_COVID-19_issues_a_case_of_selected_Arab_countries/links/62f51eccb8dc8b4403d6b4ce/A-critical-analysis-of-journalists-freedom-of-expression-and-access-to-information-while-reporting-on-COVID-19-issues-a-case-of-selected-Arab-countries.pdf

Alsubaie, A., Lyndon, N., Salman, A., & Hoe, K. C. (2021). The enlivenment of public opinion in the new era: Exploring the power of social media on political consciousness in Saudi Arabia. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters . http://myscholar.umk.edu.my/bitstream/123456789/1925/1/The-enlivenment-of-public-opinion-in-the-new-era-Exploring-the-power-of-social-media-on-political-consciousness-in-saudi-arabiaHumanities-and-Social-Sciences-Letters.pdf

Chang, K. C., Hobbs, W. R., Roberts, M. E., & Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. (2022). COVID-19 increased censorship circumvention and access to sensitive topics in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 119 (4), e2102818119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2102818119

Corduneanu-Huci, C., & Hamilton, A. (2022). Selective control: The political economy of censorship. Political Communication , 1-22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10584609.2022.2074587

Golovchenko, Y. (2022). Fighting Propaganda with Censorship: A Study of the Ukrainian Ban on Russian Social Media. The Journal of Politics , 84 (2), 639-654. http://golovchenko.github.io/articles/VK_JOP_preprint.pdf

González-Quiñones, F., & Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2019). Media censorship, freedom of expression, and journalism risks in Mexico. Information Development , 35 (4), 666-670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666919866266.

Knight, B., & Tribin, A. (2022). Opposition media, state censorship, and political accountability: Evidence from Chavez’s Venezuela. The World Bank Economic Review , 36 (2), 455-487. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25916/w25916.pdf

Lane, J. E., McCaffree, K., & Shults, F. L. (2021). Does social media censorship reinforce radicalization? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12842 . https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2103/2103.12842.pdf

Miao, W., Huang, D., & Huang, Y. (2021). More than business: The de-politicization and re-politicization of TikTok in the media discourses of China, America, and India (2017–2020). Media International Australia , 1329878X211013919. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Weishan-Miao/publication/351559321_More_than_business_The_de-politicisation_and_re-politicisation_of_TikTok_in_the_media_discourses_of_China_America_and_India_2017-2020/links/60b74a0b92851cde884b2fb7/More-than-business-The-de-politicisation-and-re-politicisation-of-TikTok-in-the-media-discourses-of-China-America-and-India-2017-2020.pdf

Ng, A. H., Kermani, M. S., & Lalonde, R. N. (2021). Cultural differences in psychological reactance: Responding to social media censorship. Current Psychology , 40 (6), 2804-2813. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/129253/1/Ng_et%20al_2019_CP_post-refereeing%20final%20draft.pdf

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Revolutionary France 1789-1793, Essay Example

A Visit to Alien Planet, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

E-book

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Censorship — A Research Of Censorship In China

test_template

A Research of Censorship in China

  • Categories: Censorship Freedom of Speech

About this sample

close

Words: 937 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 937 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, significance of research, article critique.

Image of Dr. Oliver Johnson

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

author

Verified writer

  • Expert in: Social Issues

writer

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 885 words

2 pages / 780 words

1 pages / 484 words

5 pages / 2172 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Censorship

The number of people accessing information and communication technologies has reached a critical mass around the world, especially with an emerging media outlet like social media. As a result, governments and social media [...]

In music, censorship can be defined as ‘the suppression or prohibition’, of any parts of music ‘that are considered obscene or politically unacceptable’ (Oxford University Press, 2019). This includes the editing of musical and [...]

Coleman, B. (2010). Hello China, goodbye freedom: The implications of internet censorship for political dissent in the 21st century. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(4), 891-914.Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, [...]

Imagine it is the year 2025 or more and at that time you are asked or straight declined to use social media websites on which most people rely on nowadays as their favourite pass time. Now imagine it is the year 2030 or more and [...]

Often times, authors and playwrights are ridiculed for their written works, which can lead to the banning of their literature. The practice of banning books, or other forms of printed works such as plays, is when the works are [...]

According to World Health Organization (WHO), Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is defined as “ all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

censorship research paper example

  • Mobile Site
  • Staff Directory
  • Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

  • Biz & IT
  • Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

Pics and it didn't happen —

Openai collapses media reality with sora, a photorealistic ai video generator, hello, cultural singularity—soon, every video you see online could be completely fake..

Benj Edwards - Feb 16, 2024 5:23 pm UTC

Snapshots from three videos generated using OpenAI's Sora.

On Thursday, OpenAI announced Sora , a text-to-video AI model that can generate 60-second-long photorealistic HD video from written descriptions. While it's only a research preview that we have not tested, it reportedly creates synthetic video (but not audio yet) at a fidelity and consistency greater than any text-to-video model available at the moment. It's also freaking people out.

Further Reading

"It was nice knowing you all. Please tell your grandchildren about my videos and the lengths we went to to actually record them," wrote Wall Street Journal tech reporter Joanna Stern on X.

"This could be the 'holy shit' moment of AI," wrote Tom Warren of The Verge.

"Every single one of these videos is AI-generated, and if this doesn't concern you at least a little bit, nothing will," tweeted YouTube tech journalist Marques Brownlee.

For future reference—since this type of panic will some day appear ridiculous—there's a generation of people who grew up believing that photorealistic video must be created by cameras. When video was faked (say, for Hollywood films), it took a lot of time, money, and effort to do so, and the results weren't perfect. That gave people a baseline level of comfort that what they were seeing remotely was likely to be true, or at least representative of some kind of underlying truth. Even when the kid jumped over the lava , there was at least a kid and a room.

The prompt that generated the video above: " A movie trailer featuring the adventures of the 30 year old space man wearing a red wool knitted motorcycle helmet, blue sky, salt desert, cinematic style, shot on 35mm film, vivid colors. "

Technology like Sora pulls the rug out from under that kind of media frame of reference. Very soon, every photorealistic video you see online could be 100 percent false in every way. Moreover, every historical video you see could also be false. How we confront that as a society and work around it while maintaining trust in remote communications is far beyond the scope of this article, but I tried my hand at offering some solutions  back in 2020, when all of the tech we're seeing now seemed like a distant fantasy to most people.

In that piece, I called the moment that truth and fiction in media become indistinguishable the "cultural singularity." It appears that OpenAI is on track to bring that prediction to pass a bit sooner than we expected.

Prompt: Reflections in the window of a train traveling through the Tokyo suburbs.

OpenAI has found that, like other AI models that use the transformer architecture, Sora scales with available compute . Given far more powerful computers behind the scenes, AI video fidelity could improve considerably over time. In other words, this is the "worst" AI-generated video is ever going to look. There's no synchronized sound yet, but that might be solved in future models.

How (we think) they pulled it off

AI video synthesis has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past two years. We first covered text-to-video models in September 2022 with Meta's Make-A-Video . A month later, Google showed off Imagen Video . And just 11 months ago, an AI-generated version of Will Smith eating spaghetti went viral. In May of last year, what was previously considered to be the front-runner in the text-to-video space, Runway Gen-2, helped craft a fake beer commercial full of twisted monstrosities, generated in two-second increments. In earlier video-generation models, people pop in and out of reality with ease, limbs flow together like pasta, and physics doesn't seem to matter.

Sora (which means "sky" in Japanese) appears to be something altogether different. It's high-resolution (1920x1080), can generate video with temporal consistency (maintaining the same subject over time) that lasts up to 60 seconds, and appears to follow text prompts with a great deal of fidelity. So, how did OpenAI pull it off?

OpenAI doesn't usually share insider technical details with the press, so we're left to speculate based on theories from experts and information given to the public.

OpenAI says that Sora is a diffusion model, much like DALL-E 3 and Stable Diffusion . It generates a video by starting off with noise and "gradually transforms it by removing the noise over many steps," the company explains. It "recognizes" objects and concepts listed in the written prompt and pulls them out of the noise, so to speak, until a coherent series of video frames emerge.

Sora is capable of generating videos all at once from a text prompt, extending existing videos, or generating videos from still images. It achieves temporal consistency by giving the model "foresight" of many frames at once, as OpenAI calls it, solving the problem of ensuring a generated subject remains the same even if it falls out of view temporarily.

OpenAI represents video as collections of smaller groups of data called "patches," which the company says are similar to tokens (fragments of a word) in GPT-4. "By unifying how we represent data, we can train diffusion transformers on a wider range of visual data than was possible before, spanning different durations, resolutions, and aspect ratios," the company writes.

An important tool in OpenAI's bag of tricks is that its use of AI models is compounding . Earlier models are helping to create more complex ones. Sora follows prompts well because, like DALL-E 3 , it utilizes synthetic captions that describe scenes in the training data generated by another AI model like GPT-4V . And the company is not stopping here. "Sora serves as a foundation for models that can understand and simulate the real world," OpenAI writes, "a capability we believe will be an important milestone for achieving AGI."

One question on many people's minds is what data OpenAI used to train Sora. OpenAI has not revealed its dataset, but based on what people are seeing in the results, it's possible OpenAI is using synthetic video data generated in a video game engine in addition to sources of real video (say, scraped from YouTube or licensed from stock video libraries). Nvidia's Dr. Jim Fan, who is a specialist in training AI with synthetic data, wrote on X, "I won't be surprised if Sora is trained on lots of synthetic data using Unreal Engine 5. It has to be!" Until confirmed by OpenAI, however, that's just speculation.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government Research Paper

Introduction, internet censorship, reasons for censorship, impact on the society, error analyses of filters, error analysis of filters for the distinct data set, works cited.

Internet can be defined as computer networks interconnection using a standard protocol to provide information to the entire world irrespective of where one is at any time (Garcia 32). The networks compose of public computers, learning institutions computers, business enterprises computers and private organization computers for local and global scope.

Earlier the internet was being referred to as the information super highway, its’ main aim of was to avail limitless information to everyone who needs it as fast as possible. Internet censorship refers to the act of controlling information access through the internet. Main motives of internet censorship vary from one website to another (“Research profiles.” 1).

Main reasons are children protection from harmful and explicit material, enabling grown up avoid contents that may compromise their community and personal standards, imposition of a moral framework in adult communication through the internet, and blocking of information material that is illegal to possess according to the government of a particular country under consideration.

The government uses various techniques to censor internet depending on the content they want to restrict. It does so through the use of program software called web filters or censor ware.

Main techniques for internet censorship include, IP blocking technique, this target website hosted by a common server. The entire websites hosted by that particular IP address are blocked (“Research profiles” 1).Whenever one tries to access them he/she is denied the access rights. Filtering domain name server (DNS) method, in this method the domain name is not resolved hence one is unable to access the site. This method uses software that restrict resolving of the domain name, as a result the target website is unavailable.

Packet filtering method, this technique uses keywords in filtering the content to be accessed, if the keyword is detected the site content is blocked. Another method is through the use of the uniform resource locator (URL), it uses keywords to block censored site from access. When one try to access a website the uniform resource locator is checked if it consists of the restricting keyword, if the keyword is found in the URL the site become unavailable.

Different government censors the internet due to different reasons, some may be reasonable and varied, while others are misuse of the power by the government. This has created a controversial situation of whether the government should carry out internet censorship or not (Kenny 1).

Different people have different views depending on the perspective one look the situation from, each any everyone has reason and evidence to support his/her theory. The positive aspects of internet censorship by the government around the world are immense.

World internet censorship ratings

World internet censorship ratings.

  • Blue – No censorship;
  • Yellow – Some censorship;
  • Red – Country under surveillance from Reporters without Borders;
  • Grey – Internet black holes (most heavily censored nations).

The rule makers and enforcers should work hand in hand. Their Failure to cooperate leads the rule amounting to nothing. The social contract theory was developed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes; it argues that without rules and a systematic way of enforcing them the efforts amount to nothing. It uses the concept of cooperation between involved parties, they mutually resolve to follow laid down guidelines.

The guidelines are the rules set to benefit the people socially. All agree there should be rules laid down and the government should ensure they are enforced to all irrespective of one position. This theory was develop due to no man has authority over others naturally, hence there was need to establish contracts based on covenants. For censorship to be effective the law enforces and the designers should be one body (Eid 1).

Currently there are many unethical action been carried out, since the enforcers have absconded their duties. Regulations that govern the internet ethic are no longer being observed while the law enforces are enforcing new rules at will without consulting. Recently the government of Afghanistan censored interactive sites without even consulting. This shows there is a link between the enforcers and the law makers.

The rules are desirable if the effect s of their consequences is positive. If the consequences are negative then the rule is undesirable. The theory of rule utilitarianism was developed as a result of weaknesses in the act utilitarianism theory.

The morals theory argues that an action is morally right, if the consequences of an action results to an increase in the level of happiness. The theory uses the rules when explaining the moral values of an individual contrary to the act utilitarianism which uses the principle of utility (“Introduction to Content Filtering” 7).

It tries to exploit the fact that the rules are universally adoptable, hence result to immense happiness. Rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are similar in that they use the rule to base their argument. The difference between the two is that rule utilitarian emphasis on the action consequences while the Kantianism emphasizes on the action motive. It encourages universal adoption of an action that will increase the pleasure of the affected subjects.

In the year 2003 August, a worm by the name of blaster infected computer system using windows operating system .The worm exploited a security loophole in the windows operating system. It resulted to excess network traffic and also disabled some of the networks. The infection resulted to computer rebooting itself continually. Another worm named Nachi was developed to exploit the same loophole, but did not infect those immune to the blaster worm.

On contrary Nachi worm accessed the computer in the network to destroy blaster worm copies and also to download patches of windows to fix the loophole problem. According to the computer ethics introduction of harmful malware in a network is unethical and prohibited. According to the rule utilitarian it was morally correct since the consequences of the action increased pleasure to the affected subject.

The consequences of an action do not matter. What matters are the actions themselves. The act utilitarianism theory was developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

This contradicted the earlier theory of Kantianism. It based its’ argument on the fact that an action is termed to be good if the result benefit a person and undesirable if the action harm someone. The theory was founded on the principle of utility, where the action is gauged to be right or wrong depending on the effect on the level of happiness on the concerned party.

This theory measures the morality by determining the rise or fall of happiness on the concerned party. Attitude behind an action is not relevant in this argument, what is of more concern is the consequences of the actions. Being in this context is used to refer to anything that may experiences happiness and sadness. From the definition the being not only refers to the humans but also other mammals. It is hard to measure utility thus several attribute have been selected to weigh the effect of an action on the pain and pleasure (Carter 1).

Intensity measures the experience extent, certainty measures the likelihood, and duration measures the experience length, extent measures the number of being affected, purity measures the concentration of pain or pleasure, and fecundity measures the ability replicate the experience.

Freedom without limit is always abused; most internet users do not observe the internet rules set aside to govern access of information. Almost all government censors sensitive government information or the information is not availed to the internet users.

The explicit material in the internet should be restricted to avoid underage from accessing them. Most of the Muslim dominant countries pornographic materials have been completely censored. This ensures the young ones are protected from obscene materials. The action of the government is essential to maintain a morally upright generation in censoring some materials. Due to the complex internet network the government cannot leave the censoring action to parents or private companies, it has to undertake the action itself.

The will motivating an action should be the basis of judging an action whether morally right or wrong. An action may not be moral but the motive was moral.

The Kantianism` theory was developed by a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. His argument was, people action and deeds should be based on moral laws which are universally acceptable. Citing the bible examples to support his theory, he believed for any supreme moral law to hold it must be based upon some reasoning. Someone who is a Kantian should be able to state something whether it is good or bad and qualify it using specific and varied reasoning. It entails more than arguing whether something is morally right or wrong.

The main reasoning was something may be morally right, yet it can be used wrongly to harm others or cause conflict. In this world there are barely good things without need to qualify them to be good. Only good will can be termed to be good, since there is no need to qualify it to be good. An action cannot be termed to be good simply due to the beneficial results; something good is good irrespective of the outcome from the action.

What we are meant to do is more important than what we do. We should act out of morals instilled in use rather than what we feel we should do, our moral should be the driving force upon our actions. The oppressive regime use this theory to suppress it citizen and deprive them information access. They censor interactive sites to intimidate those opposing their agenda. Late 2009 China censored interactive site especially in Tibet area. This was meant to curb growing defiance against the government

It is hard to say that the consequences of an action do not matter; what’s matter is the action itself. People are more concerned in the results not the way the results have been achieved. Kantianism theory advocate that the motive is what’s matters not he actual result of the actions. If you have a granary infested with rats, there are different ways to remedy the situation.

If you burn down the whole granary it is an option but at what cost. As much as the motive of an action is good the consequence are dire. As much as the government may have good motives and intention in censoring the internet, caution should be taken to ensure the consequences do not outweigh the gains.

The Kantianism theory should not be employed much in censoring as it may result to undesirable dire consequences. January this year the Iran government censored all interactive site, in a mission to curb government critics who were using them to sell their ideas. In addition they also banned women right websites; this caused more harm than good. It also denied the woman their rights to voice out their view; such school of thought belongs to the Stone Age where women were considered inferior.

Error analyses of filters.

Government Internet censorship is not meant to suppress the society of information access, although it may result not unanticipated negative result. Every government actions to censor internet access are meant for the better of its citizen. But there are isolated cases, where the government censors internet access using unvaried bases.

This may result the country citizen being left behind in the fast growing global village. The reason for censoring internet should be clearly defined and measures put in place to protect the law from being abused. The law should also clearly define the method and modes to be used in censoring to avoid safe site from being blocked due to criterion used to block.

From the theories discussed above, it is clear from the different approaches the main objective of all is the effect of censoring to the people. They all agree if censoring result to positive effect then it is worthy but if it is harmful then it is harmful to the same people it ought to be protecting.

Irrespective of the reasons behind the censoring of the internet the result should be positive, it should not affect the people’s majority negatively. Whether it uses the rules, consequences of the action or the will motivating the action, the moral effect should be upheld at all times. Internet should be used for moral upright or justifiable action at all time. The internet ethos should be upheld and observed by all internet users indiscriminately of their position.

Error analysis of filters for the distinct data set.

Complete censoring of the internet is contrary to the objective of having it and unhealthy to the people. The main aim of the internet is information sharing among the users and all information about any subject across the world should be accessible from anywhere in the world (Edelman 2).

Censoring result to discriminated information sharing and result to the internet falling short of its main objective. This hurt many sector in the world from business to entertainment. Although internet censoring is essential, it should be done up to a certain level where it cause more good than harm to the people.

Carter, Wendy. “How to write a thesis statement.” 2003. Web.

Edelman, Benjamin. “ Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia. ” 2010. Web.

Eid, Gamal. “The Internet in the Arab World A Space for Repression?” Reports and Press Releases. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. 2004. Web.

Garcia_Murillo, M. “Assessing the impact of Internet Telephony on the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.” 2010. Web.

Introduction to Content Filtering. “What is this service?” 2010. Web.

Kenny, Aaron. “Inside Internet Filtering.” 2009. Web.

Kuwait. “ Research profiles. ” 2010. Web.

Saudi Arabia. “ Research Profiles. ” 2010. Web.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 8). Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/

"Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." IvyPanda , 8 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government'. 8 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

1. IvyPanda . "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government." February 8, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aspects-of-internet-censorship-by-the-government/.

  • Philosophy of Kantianism Critique
  • Christian Ethics and Kantianism
  • Ethical Relativism and Absolutism (Kantianism)
  • Virtue Ethics: Kantianism and Utilitarianism
  • Philosophy Issues: Kantianism and Utilitarianism
  • Censorship on the Internet
  • The Witty Worm Software Virus and How to Address It
  • Censoring Free Speech: Pros and Cons
  • Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Egoism
  • Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering
  • The information Divide (NBN)
  • What is the negative and positive side for the national broadband network?
  • Standardized Configurations across the Network
  • Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Dating Essay
  • Information Technology Acts

IMAGES

  1. ISYS100 Final Research Paper on Internet Censorship

    censorship research paper example

  2. Censorship essay

    censorship research paper example

  3. Advanced English Censorship 1984

    censorship research paper example

  4. Censorship Research Paper Example

    censorship research paper example

  5. Censorship essay

    censorship research paper example

  6. 📗 Essay Example on Media Censorship

    censorship research paper example

VIDEO

  1. What is Research??

  2. Presentation of Policy Research Paper

  3. Finding HIGH-Impact Research Topics

  4. Critically Analyzing a Research Paper

  5. How Technology Has Affected Education?

  6. Secret To Writing A Research Paper

COMMENTS

  1. 113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples

    One of the most notorious examples is the marketing of drugs; pharmaceutical companies have successfully convinced a significant number of people that drugs are the only violable solution to their health problems. Chinese Censorship Block Chinese People from Creativity

  2. Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some ...

    To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share - in their own words - what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media.

  3. Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why

    Although some case studies have examined abuse of power by moderators , including anecdotal evidence of politically motivated censorship (Wright, 2006), the current research is the first systematic investigation of censoring among people who moderate online communities. This investigation is consequential because selective censoring that favors ...

  4. (PDF) Media censorship: Freedom versus responsibility

    Media censorship: Freedom versus responsibility Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution 7 (4):21-24 DOI: 10.5897/JLCR2015.0207 Authors: Irum Abbasi Laila Al Sharqi Abstract Media censorship is a...

  5. 'Extremely aggressive' internet censorship spreads in the world's

    A University of Michigan team used Censored Planet, an automated censorship tracking system launched in 2018 by assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science Roya Ensafi, to collect more than 21 billion measurements over 20 months in 221 countries.

  6. Selective Control: The Political Economy of Censorship

    State censorship in China, for example, ... Further research is needed to test how well recent trends respond to our theoretical predictions. However, for the period selected for this dataset (2001-2015), our media reach scale is supported by extant polls on news consumption. ... This paper asks whether the censorship strategies employed by ...

  7. PDF The Impact of Media Censorship: Evidence from a Field Experiment in China

    citizens' reach. Scholars have long suggested that censorship is key to the popular support and stability of these regimes (Ford, 1935). Nonetheless, direct empirical evidence about the effect of removing censorship is limited. In this paper, we ask two questions. Does providing access to an uncensored Internet lead citizens to

  8. New paper says scientists censor research to reduce harm

    In one example of scientists censoring scientific research, papers perceived as harmful may be held to a higher standard of acceptance by a journal's editors. Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/ Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images | Rawpixel A new paper points to an unexpected source for scientific censorship: scientists themselves.

  9. Political censorship in academic journals sets a dangerous new

    The academic community must develop a strong position to shield journals, their editors, and staff, against pressure to enforce censorship. In March 2020, The Lancet published a letter we wrote alerting the medical community to the dangers of a covid-19 outbreak in the Gaza Strip. We warned that the pandemic had "the potential to devastate one of the world's most vulnerable populations."

  10. Sample Essay on Censorship

    High school press papers are well known examples of censorship, due to the perceived "fragility" of young minds. This "preservation of youthful innocence" has long been a shield behind which the supporters of censorship have hidden.

  11. Censorship in the United States

    Essay Body Censorship is the control of speech and other forms of human expressions which are entrusted for the benefit of society. Precisely, it restricts children from being dragged to the wrong path of life.

  12. Censorship

    Definitions. In 1988, Sue Curry Jansen described censorship as "the knot that binds power and knowledge," and this binding has remained, loosely or tightly, at the heart of the dynamic between censorship and literature. 1 Censorship has been an aspect of social communication for as long as societies have conceived of the latter as a public good, and in the way that, through Jansen's knot ...

  13. Index on Censorship: Sage Journals

    Index on Censorship is an award-winning magazine, devoted to protecting and promoting free expression. International in outlook, outspoken in comment, Index on Censorship reports on free expression violations around the world, publishes banned writing and shines a light on vital free expression issues through original, challenging and intelligent commentary and analysis, publishing some of the ...

  14. Censorship Impacts on Civil Liberties Research Paper

    Censorship refers to the act of controlling the flow of information, opinions, and ideas in the society. This is mainly achieved through the suppression of speech, books, films, music, and other forms of public communication, which are considered harmful, objectionable, and problematic. Censorship is construed in this paper as infringement into ...

  15. ≡Essays on Censorship

    38 essay samples found 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Censorship in Today's World 6 pages / 2738 words Internet is the most widely used source for exchange information all over the globe. It also provides a platform in which we can express our views and talk to likeminded individuals.

  16. How Bad Is Academic Censorship, Really?

    Regnerus's research argued that children with same-sex parents faced worse outcomes, and hundreds of scholars responded by questioning the paper's "scholarly merit." (Regnerus was later ...

  17. Censorship Research Paper Example

    In this research paper, the justification for censorship is discussed with reference to four case studies of global significance in Bioethics: the redaction of potentially harmful information in scientific publications; the questioning of health claims made by proponents of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM); the veto of direct to consume...

  18. Censorship Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines

    Censorship on the Internet Kaul, V. (2012). "he pros and cons of new media and media freedom." Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism, Vol. 2, Issue 5. In his research study, author-researcher Kaul discussed the implications of using the Internet technology in launching what is called the new media, both in the context of journalistic/press freedom and freedom of expression of the civil ...

  19. Modern Means of Censorship

    Nevertheless, social networking sites build the preferences of people more effectively. Traditional means of censorship do not work for the new mass media. People hide their identities under anonymous masks and create numerous copies of their messages on various sites. According to Jossey, "about 87 percent of Americans use the Internet, and ...

  20. Censorship And The Media Research Papers Examples

    Censorship And The Media Research Papers Examples Type of paper: Research Paper Topic: Leadership, Movies, Family, Society, Media, Information, Censorship, Cinema Pages: 10 Words: 3000 Published: 03/18/2020 ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

  21. Media Censorship, Research Paper Example

    Introduction The use of censorship is to legally regulate and suppress any form of information that can result in jeopardy of the state order. In the past, censorship has been applied to manage social morals and the awareness of a state's citizens. It has also been employed as a tool against government opposition.

  22. A Research Of Censorship In China: [Essay Example], 937 words

    The seminal article by King et al. (2013) explores the researcher's creation and testing of a central hypothesis exploring the purpose of China's censorship program and how it impacts the country's pollical pursuits. The researchers (King et al., 2013) believe that the Chinese Government censor all posts with collective action potential ...

  23. Censorship vs. Self-censorship in the News Media Research Paper

    This research paper, "Censorship vs. Self-censorship in the News Media" is published exclusively on IvyPanda's free essay examples database. You can use it for research and reference purposes to write your own paper. ... It contains thousands of paper examples on a wide variety of topics, all donated by helpful students. You can use them for ...

  24. OpenAI collapses media reality with Sora, a photorealistic AI video

    On Thursday, OpenAI announced Sora, a text-to-video AI model that can generate 60-second-long photorealistic HD video from written descriptions. While it's only a research preview that we have not ...

  25. Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government Research Paper

    Internet censorship. Main techniques for internet censorship include, IP blocking technique, this target website hosted by a common server. The entire websites hosted by that particular IP address are blocked ("Research profiles" 1).Whenever one tries to access them he/she is denied the access rights.