That freedom of expression is not absolute is one of the best lessons I have learned from my mass media law classes in college. That “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances” is assured by constitutions.
However, as my professor stressed, freedom of expression is not absolute. The constitutional provision has been exploited, misinterpreted and misused on numerous occasions. The same things have happened, I would venture to say, in other parts of the globe. And that can not be truer in the connected world, the age of the internet, in the era of shared knowledge and community-generated content.
This New York Times story about Wikipedia’s revision of its “anyone can edit” policy is a good case in point. Despite the site’s being known for having its content built by its visitors and users, Wikipedia chose to protect some articles from the public and relied on its administors and editors for updating. A list of protected topics, such as Human rights in China, Military budget of China, Messianic Judaism, George Bernard Shaw, Islam and anti-Semitism, Freedom fighter, Mail-order bride and Moscow Metro can be found on this link.
Some topics are considered sensitive, as in the case of human rights and Chinese military, while others are being protected in order to prevent vandalism and probably, terrorism. Ultimately, the exercise protects the information that the public – those whose only purpose for visiting the site is related to research – accesses.
While serious researchers may not care about Cristina Aguilera, responsible practice of freedom of expression, particularly in the globally accessed arenas should be promoted. Some censorship is often set up for a good reason.
(This post is also on Pandora Squared.)