Forcing free speech

By Michael Fraase

Saturday, 07 January 2006 08:55PM CST

Section: Censorship

Should internet companies be regulated to ensure free speech? That’s the question posed by Reporters Without Borders. And the organization’s answer is an unqualified maybe, but only as a last resort. Citing numerous examples of US technology companies—including Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo!—working with repressive governments to stifle free expression, the organization proposes six ways to force these companies to behave ethically:

  1. No US company could host email servers within a country with a repressive government.
  2. Search engines would not be allowed to use automatic censor filters.
  3. No US company could host content servers within a country with a repressive government.
  4. Either US companies could no longer sell censorware to repressive governments or it would have to be neutered.
  5. US companies would have to obtain permission from the US Commerce Department in order to sell surveillance technology to repressive states.
  6. US companies would have to obtain permission from the US Commerce Department in order to provide surveillance or censorship training in countries with repressive governments.

On the surface, this reads like an admirable proposal. But it’s a proverbial slippery slope of unintended consequences. Reporters Without Borders proposes that before legislation is enacted, “a group of congressmen formally ask Internet corporations to reach an agreement among themselves on a code of conduct;” namely its six-item ethical laundry list. The request would include a deadline for the companies to submit a draft code of conduct to the congresscritters. If the deadline is missed, only then would the legislation be drafted.

Politically, it’s a non-starter. As Dan Gillmor points out, Congress is heavily skewed to the interests of corporations and even though few congresscritters would like to get caught in a floor vote favoring censorship, such a measure would never come to a vote—for that very reason.

But more importantly, the regulation of expression, in any form—either by corporation or government—is something to be avoided at close to any cost.

Permalink | (0) Comments

Page 1 of 1 pages