"There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither."
—Ramsey Clark

The list of governments attempting to control speech on the Internet includes China, Turkey, Singapore, Myanmar. . . and Australia and the United States.

by Patricia Fusco ISP-Planet Managing Editor [April 27, 2000]

Governments around the world claim they want to protect children, thwart terrorists, silence racists, and stop hate mongering. Worldwide leaders are hiding their quest for information control behind a veil of noble aspirations that prey on techno-fueled fears of an uninformed populace.

As legislators rush to embrace the residual benefits of e-commerce while strangling gateways and exchanges with filters, encryption restrictions, and content banishment, Internet service providers and Web content hosts must prepare for serious government attempts to eradicate freedom of expression on the Internet.

If service providers don't take a stand and act now, what was once referred to as the "Information Superhighway" enriched by a free flow of Internet content and unrestricted access, may have less content than public access television, with ISPs and WPPs acting as the "Net Police" of the world.

China
China created an office to regulate news on the Internet in April as part of a ruse to help state-owned media compete in the booming online information market. WPPs and Web sites owners are concerned about the ambiguous mandate of the Internet Information Management Bureau, which includes stopping the "infiltration of harmful information on the Internet."

China's IMB maintains that they are focused on making sleepy state-owned news sites more popular. In a speech carried by official newspapers last week, bureau head Wang Qingcun said the office would promote development of the industry by establishing copyright standards and stamping out harmful and false information.

Beijing alread struck a blow against popular Web sites like Sina.com.cn, Sohu.com, and Netease.com earlier this year when it barred them from running foreign news stories. To compensate for the cessation of foreign news, the sites have largely relied on publishing sensationalized stories about crime and official corruption.

While China's IMB forces popular portals to downplay such news the Chinese online community has flee to Chinese-language sites overseas. However, authorities already block many such sites, so surfers need to adapt their access by using proxy servers to get around the state-sanctioned firewalls.

Ironically, the U.S. still considers itself to be the mouthpiece of free speech on the Internet. But the tactics that Chinese surfers use to gain news of the outside world is the same means by which Napster users get around institutionalized firewalls and 13-year-olds provide false information to circumvent COPPA restrictions while spam filters restrict free trade as well as unwanted e-mail.

Turkey
Turkey is just one of the latest countries to consider patrolling cyberspace for threats to its security with a powerful watchdog body that includes senior military and intelligence officials.

Should Turkey take such action, it would likely prompt further mainland Europe criticism of the country, which has to improve its human rights record before it is allowed to reap the economic benefits of joining the European Union.

Turkish authorities contend that they are merely attempting to thwart terrorist threats from separatist Kurdish rebels and militant Islamic activists.

Since the 1980s Turkey battled with the guerrilla Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the mountains of the southeast. With the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and guerrilla defeats by the Turkish military, PKK operations have moved in part to cyberspace to continue their efforts. See, for example, this post on a University of California as San Diego site.

Draconian Turkish authorities prosecute journalists and politicians alike for any association with the PKK under dogmatic sedition laws. Newspapers have been shut down and television stations taken off the air for what the Western world would consider benign references to PKK rebels.

Web site owners and ISP operators can not consider themselves exempt from such government initiatives. The extension of a firm Turkish grip on the printed word into cyberspace is a logical step for any authoritarian regime and Turkey has its legislative body working on a resolution to do just that right now.

Turkey's estimated 800,000 Internet users could resort to using fake identities online to escape official monitoring, but government mechanisms to control online communication could gain the means to reveal a users true identity.

Singapore
Singapore has considered a different approach to regulating its citizen's hearts and minds on the Internet. The city-state's government is considering hosting a "Speakers' Corner" as a free speech zone for the online world. Of course, the authoritarian government retains its power to detain anyone deemed a threat to public order without trial. Posting an e-mail message contrary to government opinion at the "free speech zone" could result in imprisonment.

In this instance, Singapore's proposed Speakers' Corner is a tool for the government to feign democracy while it attracts potential malcontents to its free-speech venue. Meanwhile, the government is continuing its aggressive push into e-commerce to maintain its prosperity and is urging Singaporeans to get online to share their Asian values with the world.

Myanmar
While the rest of developing Asia is rushing to envelop e-commerce opportunities, Myanmar's unelected military rulers forbid access to the Internet, fearing that it could open up a floodgate of dissent.

Sales of computers are growing rapidly in Myanmar and sources estimate that there 50,000 computers in use among its population of 48 million people. But networking between those computers and the outside world is forbidden. A 1996 law imposes a 7- to 15-year jail term for the unauthorized ownership of a modem.

Pro-democracy campaigners abroad have set up dozens of Internet sites and Web discussion groups critical of the Myanmar regime accusing the government of human rights abuses while suppressing democracy. Note, for example, freeburmacoalition.org.

Myanmar government deems such sites as garbage and insists that Web trash does not belong in its citizen's homes. At the same time, the regime maintains its own colorful Web site at www.myanmar.com, and has the capacity to provide the public with Internet access, yet it chooses to keep the international news flow stemmed.

Even e-mail has struggled for official acceptance in Myanmar. Three years after it was first introduced, e-mail remains restricted to a few hundred foreigners and to privileged few businessmen with close ties to the Myanmar government.

In January, the government's own Internet server, which cost $1.5 million to install, went into general service after 18-months of delays. The new server restores service to the hundreds of frustrated e-mail users cut off by the government in December when it abruptly pulled the plug on five private e-mail providers.

The service providers had set up access without government's authorization and the episode stood to stimulate views that Myanmar government officials feared the open nature of cyberspace.

If China's censorship experience is typical of what it takes to censor the Net, then war-ravaged and impoverished Myanmar faces an uphill battle in its attempts to do the same.

Australia and the United States
Australia has already enacted legislation which mandates blocking Internet content based on existing national film and video classification guidelines. The Australian experience reiterates that even developed democracies can engage in Internet censorship and that censorship is a global issue.

Australia also now has a Privacy Commissioner. On the other hand, reports from australia.internet.com claim that Australian police hacked into ISPs' systems to monitor email, and that during a debate concerning an Internet law, an Australian politician told reporters, "The Internet Industry is on trial."

U.S. political camps including the Clinton Administration, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Texas Gov. George W. Bush have each attempted to quell the freedom of expression. Only Bush took on the Web, while the others attacked more traditional creative outlets. (Years ago, Tipper Gore, wife of Al, was among a group of Senators' wives who masterminded legislation that created "explicit lyrics" labels for music content — labels which sold more music and prompted more obscenity.)

The Bush campaign filed a complaint last April with the Federal Election Commission about a Web site that satirized the official Bush Web site. The FEC has not ruled on the complaint to date.

The Clinton administration has repeatedly come under fire for its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy on gays in the military and New York's Mayor Giuliani attempted to withdraw city funding from the Brooklyn Museum because he was personally offended by the contents of an exhibit.

Global Censorship
The creation of an international rating and filtering system for Internet content has been proposed as an alternative to national legislation regulating online speech. Contrary to their original intent to block spam or protect children and the nation's infrastructure from terrorist attack, such systems actually facilitate governmental restrictions on Internet expression.

It does not matter whether it's China, Turkey, Myanmar, Australia or the U.S., rating and filtering schemes prevent individuals from discussing controversial or unpopular topics and impose burdensome compliance costs on ISPs and WPPs.

Filters, rating systems and restricted access distort the fundamental diversity and freedom of the Internet. In order to avoid legal and technical trappings that seek to block the free flow of information, the industry needs to educate individuals about how to view the Internet and all its benefits within the confines of their personal preferences.

The establishment and acceptance of any blocking and tracking systems worldwide only works to suppress free expression on the Internet. It also shifts the cost of such activities from government bodies to ISPs and WPPs, those who provide access to the Internet.

Service providers' operating margins can not subsidize government attempts to crush free speech on the Internet. The industry must educate the global online community if freedom is to continue to ring through the Net.

Links to global activist organizations
Global Internet Liberty Campaign
http://www.gilc.org/

The Public Voice
http://www.epic.org/

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org/

A college student's reply to music censorship
Midterm report on music and censorship

Latest Report on Government Censorship of the Internet
From NUA