News hit the web yesterday that a U.S. Government-funded site serving as a database and repository on reproductive health information seemingly began censoring (blocking) search results for the term “abortion”. (Wired Magazine Web Article Here)
The U.S. Agency for International Development funds the search site, administrated by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The database tracks and contains a massive amount of health literature and information, including literature on abortion. But, for an undisclosed reason, the search engine began returning a “no results” message for the keyword “abortion” on Thursday.
Whether or not this is an explicit order of some arm of the administration, or merely the decision of someone within the USAID organization acting on the President’s pro-life agenda of their own accord, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that this sort of censorship of information is not unlike our neighbors to the (far) east.
China, a Communist regime, has been censoring their country’s internet access and the general availability of online content for years. In recent years, search engine companies like Google and Yahoo have even agreed to assist in the censorship of information as a means of being allowed to participate in China’s growing market. (Breitbart Article on Google Censorship) (Additional info on Google and Yahoo censorship)
The similarities here are fairly self-evident. Both countries are taking it upon themselves to decide what information to disseminate to the general public, and the decision is based solely on political motivations. And while this recent case in the U.S. may be an isolated incident, while China’s censorship runs far and wide, the hypocrisy in such a move is overwhelming.
China is, quite obviously, not known for its freedom. And while that may change in the near future (thanks to the burgeoning middle class and increased consumerism that is sweeping through the major urban areas of the country), China still remains a Communist country that straddles the thin line between strict “red” government and free-market capitalism.
Here in the U.S., however, we expect and demand a freedom of expression, ideas and information that are the very tenets this country was founded on. Furthermore, withholding useful, potentially life-altering information on health is one of the most morally bankrupt practices you could engage in. For instance, if you knew for a fact that there was a dangerous situation happening around the corner from your house, and you saw your neighbor walking their dog in that direction, but you did nothing to stop them, you would, in essence, be partially responsible if anything were to happen to them.
The same should hold true, then, for withholding medical or scientific information that could potentially prove beneficial to the general public. And for an administration that holds itself in rather high moral regards, this constitutes a breach of the very beliefs that they have founded their rhetoric on.
