Threats to Free Speech

   The future of American free speech on the internet will be the focus of a key conference this coming December.  The meeting will not take place in Washington, or anywhere in the U.S.A.  It will not include members of the public, the press, or even any elected officials other than a White House representative. 

   If that doesn’t frighten you enough, then consider this:  the most enthusiastic proponents of the event are the Chinese and the Russians. They, along with other members of the United Nations, will convene at the World Conference on International Telecommunications to establish a cyberspace regulatory scheme. The ability to engage in uncensored political speech is on the table.

   Some nations, especially China, already engage in internet censorship. Unfortunately, Secretary  Clinton’s State Department has failed to adequately combat internet censorship, according to the Global Internet Freedom Consortium.  In fact, although Congress provided $50 million in funding to the State Department for this fight, little has been done. 

   United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has echoed those who believe in at least some censorship by stating that “considering the immediate impact of information in the digital world, journalists must be much more responsible in their work to ensure accuracy, balance and fairness, and not use the media to disseminate hatred or conflict, or incite violence.”  Unfortunately, the definitions of “accuracy, balance, fairness and inciting” would be left to the same rulers who internet writers may be opposing.  The fact is, both governments and other powerful institutions have increasingly killed, arrested or censored internet journalists. 

   China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are introducing a resolution at the U.N. to establish an internet “governance” concept that would insert censorship into this most democratic of media. 

   Observer Raven Clabough writes that “Last year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with the head of the [UN’s] International Telecommunications Union [ITU] and declared ‘international control over the internet’ to be vital.  Former UN Ambassador David Gross contends that “in the…[December] conference…countries such as China and Russia will once again attempt to expand the authority of the ITU.”

   Concern has been mounting in Washington about the Obama Administration’s position on the issue.  The major shift could be seen in the White House’s acceptance of the innocuous sounding but worrisome Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or “ACTA.”   The general purpose of the measure is to establish global standards and an international legal framework to enforce intellectual property rights, copyright laws, etc., a goal that is clearly in American interest. But both the means it uses to do so, and the manner in which the President imposed its provisions, has caused extraordinary concern to civil libertarians and constitutional traditionalists.

   Under the treaty, signed by President Obama last October, foreign interests are entitled to demand that internet service providers (ISPs) remove web content within the United States without any court supervision.  This sets a precedent for authoritarian nations to demand that critical political comments be removed from U.S. websites in future treaties. 

   Equally as worrisome is the manner in which Washington “ratified” the measure.  The treaty has been presented by the White House as an “executive agreement,” circumventing any interaction with Congress.

   Not to be outdone in the realm of acting irresponsibly, our own New York State Senate is considering a bill (deceptively named the “Internet Protection Act”) introduced by State Senator Tom O’Mara (R-Elmira) that would provide some control over the internet under the guise of preventing cyber-bullying. 

   The rising threat of governmental censorship and lawsuits is threatening the internet’s freedom.  Legitimate concerns such as copyright protections can be addressed by simpler cooperative efforts on a state to state level.   Last week, on Memorial Day, we honored those who gave their lives to protect our freedom and our Constitution from foreign armies.  Will we now surrender them to foreign bureaucrats?