The debate on whether or not to censor information has been going on for centuries. The term ‘censor’ in Roman times originally referred to the function of special magistrates assigned to supervise public morals and, so long as this remained the remit, the norms governing society provided the guidelines. But as governments, which have for eons used censorship as an instrument to control the flow of information to its citizens, expanded the definition of censorship to help them combat, for example, the spread of seditious ideas, attempts to fan communalism and the spread of terrorism, the debate has become more complex.
Governments have, over time, used different methodologies and, in some cases, including in democracies, their objective was often to prevent the flow and dissemination of ideas that could be inconvenient to those in authority. None of these efforts, despite short periods of gain, succeeded. The fine line between censorship and restricting content that offended society, however, got progressively blurred with citizens, including creative sections of society, accusing governments of violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The other powerful argument against censorship is that it inhibits access to knowledge and stunts innovation.
At the same time, governments today are confronted with complex situations where threats to human life and society have got magnified. This is more the case when a country is flanked by hostile neighbours. In India, for example, terrorism and threats posed by hostile elements intent on creating communal violence challenge the resources of the government. These have the advantage of surprise and, often, anonymity. The government’s objective of preventing violence or spread of terror necessitates the monitoring and tracking of communications to detect terrorists and their plans and prevent situations from spiralling out of control.
Authoritarian and repressive states have traditionally focused on establishing strong and effective internal security services to control their populace and retain their monopoly on power. They use censorship to control what information can be accessed by their populace and augment that with propaganda. The rapid advances, especially in the last two decades, in telecommunications technology has intertwined interception, hacking of the Internet and censorship. Undoubtedly, in this process, privacy is eroded. Even authoritarian governments like the People’s Republic of China, who have invested huge amounts in the instruments of control, including Big Data, and have achieved a measure of success in censoring the Internet, have not been entirely successful. Hackers and information technology specialists have found ways through the Great Firewall and their citizens continue to find new ways to circumvent state controls.