RSSGroup: Net Censorship Becoming a Problem
By Ed Oswald | Published June 7, 2007, 4:58 PM
Amnesty International issued a warning Wednesday saying Internet freedoms were slowly being curtailed, likening the problem to a 'virus' spreading throughout the world.
Whereas only a handful of countries were initially censoring speech on the Internet, recently those numbers have begun to grow. Additionally, Internet companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google are being blamed for not taking an active role in preventing censorship.
The companies' responses have repeatedly cited a preference to abide by local laws when approached about the matter. However, and most notably in the case of Yahoo, information provided has resulted in the jailing of several activists.
"Unless we act on this issue, the Internet could change beyond all recognition in the years to come," campaign director Tim Hancock told the BBC. According to the group, at least 25 countries now filter content before it reaches its citizens.
Filtering is not the only problem. Like China, closures of Web sites and the imprisonment of those writing content objectionable to government officials is also on the rise, it said.
Freedom is over for the World.
Governments no longer do the people will or protect thier citizens. Goverments do as government pleases and only move to protect the government itself. Freedom is a wild west fantasy. Citizens are now neutered by the rule of law, a healthy boot from corporate conspiracies, with a alliance with the Press.
Score: 0
|...and the aliens are out to get you.
Score: 0
|There is no freedom of speech in England anymore, not on the internet or on the street
Score: 0
|Tell me about censorhip-- i'm not even allowed in my own crib...
The big 3 providers mentioned should come to an informal agreement amongst themselves(and anyone else they can recruit) that they won't kowtow... although bitter enemies, they should/can do that.
Score: 0
|Tell me about censorhip
Ok.
Censorship is the Government restriction placed on expression (Speech, writing, music, etc) that limits what can be covered by that expression.
Notice I emphasized the word Government. I did that for a reason.
Censorship does *not* include the restriction of expression within a private entity. Any company is allowed by law to restrict what goes on within their business, including what they choose to restrict on their product (in this case, the search results).
Unfortunately, too many schools have apparently glossed over this little tidbit.
Score: 0
|I think i lost you there...even though i agree. The article only referred to government?
Unless you're saying AI wants laws passed that would forbid companies from kowtowing to censorship in other countries... but i see no mention of that in the article.....
Score: 0
|Nah. You read to much into it. I was simply telling you about censorship.... Ya know, because you asked. :p
Opportunity. Seized.
Score: 0
|I've got to agree with censorship being a problem. I live in China and run into the bamboo firewall constantly. It's not limited to 'sensitive' issues either. What to do?
http://bamboo-adventure.com
(and yes, even my own blog is blocked here)
Score: 0
|apply for citizenship in a country more to your liking?
Score: 0
|This just in: Apparently in Rome they're acting like Romans. Amnesty International is outraged. Full story at 11.
Score: 0
|what a short-sighted group, lets criticize everyone who wont impose our values on other cultures. lets act like the minority are the ONLY people who matter. they are just another head in the clouds utopian vision group with no real impact on the world.
Score: 0
|Somebody should censor those terrorist bums and their lousy hate-filled websites.
Score: 0
|Why?
Score: 0
|Because they are terrorist bums and they have lousy hate-filled websites. Stop trying to complicate things.
Score: 0
|Freedom of speech is great. But it is a freedom guaranteed by our Government as it pertains to the public domain.
It is *not* the job of any government to intervene in any specific corporations limitations or restrictions of free speech within it's own private domain. This includes search engines. The results are a product and they can restrict, block, or censor what they wish from being part of that product.
The companies mentioned above have made business decisions to abide the laws regarding speech of the countries in which they operate. It is not within their jurisdiction to dictate policy to government, and I don't think anyone here would want it that way (RIAA, anyone?)
Free Speech should be protected... By such things as diplomacy, sanctions, import/export restrictions, etc. Things that are the purview of the government, not by messing with the rights of corporations to do *business* or requiring they become diplomatic ambassadors.
Amnesty International *should* put pressure on the governments in question. Even on *our* government. But not on corporations. It's simply outside their roles. Way outside.
Score: 0
|i agree 100%... couldnt have said it any better... if that good in the first place
Score: 0
|You are 100% right.... theoretically!
Freedom of speech is quite useless if one cannot "hear" that speech. And when you have situation where government and corporations are aligned, and those corporations control the MECHANISMS enabling free speech, you have a problem, even in the US, never mind China et al.
Indeed, even in the US, freedom of speech is being drastically misused ... just look at the examples from mediamatters.org to see this.
Score: 0
|you miss the point. It is NOT THE CORPORATIONS JOB to dictate free speech. they do not have the power to tell a country how to operate, and being only a corporation, have to abide by the law of the land where they operate. what part of that do you not understand? corporations are not non-profit organizations, they have serious consequences to deal with for not following the local law. would you rather a few people lose freedom of speech for awhile while either the people revolt or other countries preasure the that country, or would you rather all the people in that country working for said company lose thair jobs and possibly starve, and the company losses all their assests in that country?
Score: 0
|and the company losses all their assests in that country?
Losses?
Assests?
Drink coffee, then post. :p (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Score: 0
|hehe over active s finger...
Score: 0
|I find it interesting that companies like Google fight tooth and nail over the US Government trying to get records on traffic through their site when trying to get terrorists, but they roll over and do as asked when China or some other dictorship based country asks for information on a dissident.
Score: 0
|In the US, they can do so legally. There are laws protecting them and the information they do not wish to disclose. Those laws do not exist in China and they have no leg to stand on if they don't like the current political situation. They are a corporation, not a diplomatic assembly or government "rights" organization.
Score: 0
|nobody seems to understand that, blinded by their "outrage" people need to get a grip, the corp would only get seized by the government in that country if they tried to resist. what happens to Amnesty international if google and yahoo resisted and had all assests seized in china? nothing. they need to stop trying to make companies take risks where no possible gain can come from. so what if they support freedom of speech? if they did they wouldnt exist in china in a few months and we would all be back on square one.
Score: 0
|The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed at) was that Google claims that they are this great company standing up for the little guy. Hence their refusal to help possibly track down terrorists over the guise of "free speech" and the protection thereof.
Yet if they truly believe in this, then why would they do business with a government that is totally opposed to free speech?
Oh right, because they have money to spend and when it all comes down to it, it's really about the bottom line.
I'm not against a company making money, but when do we start living by our standard of ethics? Or are they no longer a matter of importance when it comes to how much money is brought to the table?
If you found out that a local company was cheating their employees over wages and benefits or treating them abusively, would you buy anything from them? No, you'd boycott them and help to get others to find out what's happening so that they too would avoid shopping there in an effort to make them change their ways.
Score: 0
|Yet if they truly believe in this, then why would they do business with a government that is totally opposed to free speech?
Competition. Mainly: Global Market Share. Boils down to options. Competition, even in a restrictive environment provides options. Options are good.
I'm not against a company making money, but when do we start living by our standard of ethics?
Devil's Advocate: Since when are *our* ethics better than anyone else's? What gives us the right to enforce our ethics upon any other society? There are plenty of people, in China for example, that are not faith driven and seek to retain their culture. That is their right. It is not our right to force them to allow our culture to muddy theirs.
If you found out that a local company was cheating their employees over wages and benefits or treating them abusively, would you buy anything from them? No, you'd boycott them and help to get others to find out what's happening so that they too would avoid shopping there in an effort to make them change their ways.
Again, in the US, we have laws against that. The legal system works in the US to support *our* culture. We have no right to attempt to change another's unless that culture directly threatens our own.
..and the moment we start forcing companies that exist in the global marketplace to adhere to *our* ethics and *our* standards, and disallowing them from doing business *anywhere* that doesn't kowtow to our beliefs, we're just as bad, if not worse because we're then limiting the rights of our own people and destroying our own culture (freedom) from within.
Score: 0
|uh we call that wal-mart and everyone still buys from them.
china is a different culture, not everyone wants it the way we have here, many like it the way it is, and when it comes right down to it, who is this amnesty international, or you for that matter to decide that a government is wrong? sure google is a company that "defends the little guy" but only where it is legal to do so, and where they can do it without large loss of profits. how about this scenario, google has a corporate sector in china, they openly oppose chinese web censoring, china seizes all googles assets and they become government property. china starts manufaturing or using googles products and programs and ignoring their IP because they are not a legal company in china anymore. now think then who controls google.... thats right the stockholders, and they are all bound to look out for their own money that they invested in google. in the end the ceo may want to do this and that, but stockholders whose money may be in under the axe are in conrtol of what risks are taken. now if you had 30k in a company but that company decided to stand up for a small sector of the worlds idea of ethics and lost all your money, would you be happy? yeah i didnt think so....
Score: 0
|