Filtering the cyberspace as a crime or a way for its prevention?

Almost all governments, whether libertarian or authoritarian, resort to filtering in order to prevent crime in the cyberspace due to political, cultural, etc. considerations but often due to technical and criminological limitations and inappropriate filtering, not only are they not successful in achieving their goal, but also violate fundamental human rights such as the right to freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy. Therefore, this article, examines whether filtering is a crime prevention way or as a crime itself. This article concludes in a descriptive-analytical approach that if governments are satisfied to the legality of filtering and disregard for conditions such as the necessity and appropriateness in filtering it has led to their excessive interference in the fundamental human rights of citizens and the damages caused by such filtering can be raised by the use of critical criminology teachings with the approach of social pathology in the form of state crime.

1.Introduction
 Filtering is the first option of some governments to prevent cybercrimes. They intend to achieve this goal by disconnecting unauthorized content or making the crime more difficult, but because of the inefficiency of filtering techniques and easy access to anti-filters, they do not succeed. In addition, prevention of crime is a pretext in the hands of authoritarian systems to prevent the free flow of information in the community, the revelation of organized corruption news, and the co -operation of public opinion. In this paper, first, filtering functions are examined as one of the crime prevention measures. Then, with regard to the filtering’s consequences on human rights, the necessity of examining excessive filtering as a state crime is considered as critical criminology with the approach of social pathology and finally, according to human rights documents, it is recommended that their use can prevent violations of fundamental human rights in filtering.

2.Methodology
The methodology of this article is descriptive-analytical approach which has accomplished research on various literatures in criminal sciences.

3.Results and discussion
The expansion of cyberspace in the last two decades has had a profound impact on communication development, information exchange and increased business. It also provides an easy, complex and cheekbones for new effects of delinquency and some governments have to filtering cyberspace in the hope of difficulty making access to crime target, controlling access and reducing tools, motivations and crime revenues. But regardless of the inefficiencies of this type of prevention, excessive filtering without distinguishing between permissible and unauthorized content and sometimes even obstruction of cyberspace and social networks claiming to support ethical values and public security, into a means of repression of totalitarian systems. According to the authors, in terms of violations of privacy, media freedom and free intelligence, this situation provides the basis for the growth of government corruption and is a state crime against the fundamental rights of citizens.

 4.Conclusion
Cyberspace filtering must be subject to principles such as loss, legality, and necessity, and pursue legal goals such as maintaining public order and security, protecting the moral health of the community and preventing crime. Therefore, extensive and unnecessary filtering, but also blocking citizens' access to cyberspace and social networks as a tool of totalitarian systems to prevent free flow of information, a clear case of government crime and Article 570 of the Islamic Penal Code (Book Fifth: Ta'zir and  preventive Punishments).
 
5.Selection of References
Article 19, (2016), “Freedom of expression unfiltered: How blocking and filtering affect free speech”, London, Article 19, pp.1-26. last visited : 3/12/2019, Available at: www. Article 19.org.
Banday,M.Tariq &  Shah,N.A (2010), “A concise study of web filtering”,Sprouts:Working paper on information systems,10(31),pp.1-11.
Breindl,Yana & Theiner,Patric & Busch,Andreas (2015), “Internet blocking regulation :a comparative analysis of 21 liberal democracies”, presented at the u4 cluster conference:Governance of a contemporary multilateral institutional architecture,.of political science,pp.1-42.
Callanan,Cormac & Gercke,Marco &  DeMarco,Estelle & Ziekenheiner,Hein (2009), “Internet blocking balancing cybercrime responses in democratic societies”, Open socity Institute, Action internet solutions.
Jaishankar,  Karupannan (2008), “ Space transition  theory of cyber crimes,in book: crime of the internet,chapter: space Trasition Theory of cybercrime”, Editores: Frank, Schmalleger, Michael, Pittaro, Publisher pearson
OpenNet Initiative (2004), “ A Starting point: legal implication of internet filtering”, OpenNet Initiative, pp.1-17, .last visited: 12/7/2019,Available at: www.opennet initiative.org.
Reyns, Bradford & Henson, Billy (2013), “security in digital world:  understanding and preventing cybercrime victimization”, Switzerland ,Security Journal, 26(4), pp 311-314.
Vicks, Mery E (2013), “An examination of internet filtering and safety policy trends and issues in south Carolina,s K-12, ” public schools, Nova Southeastern University (NSU).
Zittrain, Jonathan &  L,John & G, Palfrey Jr (2007), “Access denied:the practice and policy of Global internet filtering”, Oxford ,Oxford internet institute research report,no. 14, pp.1-30.