Posted: Feb 16, 2012 4:00 pm
Federico wrote:It becomes now more and more apparent that the real fight for freedom of expression is now going to be fought not for complicated and murky issues like the right to deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but rather against what is considered a new form of censorship adapted to the new social media like Google and Twitter.
Nowadays when we mention censorship we don't have in mind the model used in Dictatorships like the former USSR, or China, Iran, and Syria, but rather the one used in Democracies to protect the State from the circulation of news which might damage it, or to protect economic and financial interests. And the targets for the new censorship may be religious, sexual, racial, or even diplomatic, as in the case Assange-Wikileaks.
But the most important battlefield is really the Web, as illustrated by the already mentioned story of Megauploads, the file-sharing site blocked by the FBI, where the Knights in shining armor, new Templars of a totally free Web, are in perennial conflct with multinationals apparently defending authorship rights but in fact minding their own interests.
One result of such fight is ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) which, while devised to protect copyright, is indeed a new form of censure.
Some of the posters in this thread have taken the opportunity to defend freedom of expression also in the current and running struggle against Big Brother trying to limit the freedom of Internet.
This is particularly relevant in the case of a piece of proposed legislation called ACTA.
What is rather preposterous is the way taken by the Conservtive Canadian Government in its effort to defend what, after all, is an attack on freedom of expression.
Indeed, as written by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail:
On Internet privacy, I’m with the child pornographers
"Where do you stand on the new online surveillance bill? Are you with the government? Or are you with the child pornographers? According to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, you have to choose.
In case you fail to get the point, the new legislation is being subtly marketed as the [i]Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act. Of course, maybe you don’t really care about protecting children from Internet predators. Maybe you don’t care that without this law, filthy perverts will continue to roam free. Really, it’s your choice.....
....Critics say the act should really be called the Licence to Snoop Law. That’s because the bill would give police the power to acquire detailed information about who you are online, without answering to anyone about why.
But wait! Isn’t this the same government that whipped up moral panic over the gun registry and the long-form census? In each case, they told us our right to privacy was threatened by egregious intrusions from the state. The state has no business knowing how many bathrooms you have – but if it wants access to your online activities, hey, that’s totally okay....
.....I wish governments would stick to collecting taxes, managing the economy and trade talks with China. But they never do. Invariably, they try to improve society by imposing their values on us. Conservatives think they can improve society by getting tough on crime and cracking down on drugs. Liberals think they can improve society by enhancing social conditions and easing up on drugs. Conservatives believe in authority and justice. Liberals believe in equality and fairness. Conservatives believe in the police. Liberals believe in human-rights commissions.....
.... So why do I stand with the child pornographers here? Because I’m not convinced the police need new powers to root out online child molesters. Judging by the recent highly publicized busts of child-porn rings, their existing powers seem to be working fine. Nor am I convinced that the police will never abuse their power. History shows they usually do. That’s why they need civilian oversight. That’s not liberal, in my view. That’s prudent".