Internet Censorship Spreading

Internet Cafe in Vietnam, from Reipy


According to a group called the "Open Net Initiative", government filtering of internet content is at a higher level than ever before. A similar report by Reporters Without Borders was released a year ago. From ONI:

Countries which carry out the broadest range of filtering included Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, the study said.

Do you see a common theme among these nations? So do I. Interestingly, the BBC failed to mention the connection with Islam. On this list, Burma is the only one that is not a majority Muslim nation (although they are a minority). It's also disturbing that the list includes Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which are supposed to be our allies in the war on terror. Somehow, I don't feel a high level of confidence in an ally that feels it needs to rigidly control information to maintain its existence.

Anyway, if you are a Westerner, you might think why should I care? What difference does it make if Iran decides to block the Mohammed Cartoons or porno sites?

Here's why:

The filtering had three primary rationales, according to the report: politics and power, security concerns and social norms.

The report said: "In a growing number of states around the world, internet filtering has huge implications for how connected citizens will be to the events unfolding around them, to their own cultures, and to other cultures and shared knowledge around the world."

In other words, nations which filter content are only getting half the picture on their TV, newspapers, and now internet. This means that these countries are reporting on corruption in Western Nations (but not their own), about Israeli air strikes in Gaza (but not the Hamas rocket attacks), and about human rights violations against Muslims in the West (but nothing about the abysmal status of women's rights in the Middle East). Many people around the world are getting a skewed picture of the West, particularly of the US, UK, and Israel, which makes it much more difficult to negotiate peace, or find a lasting common ground.

There are several rumors that constantly run rampant through the Islamic world, and the media there does little to dispel them; for example I have run into educated Arabs that believed the Jews control everything in America, that the CIA engineered 9/11, that the US is in the Middle East only for oil, and that women can't control their sexual urges (don't I wish...!)

Of course, there is another concern: simple human rights. A few years ago, Iran started to jail bloggers. Normally a just a year or two, but in 2005, they really wanted to make an example of someone. Blogger Arash Sigarchi was sentenced to 14 years in jail for crimes including: insulting the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei and current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, aiding Iran's enemies, and espionage. It happens elsewhere too. In February of this year, Abdel-Karim Nabil Suleiman, an Egyptian blogger, was sentenced by his government to four years in jail for "insulting Islam".

I am surprised that China was not on their list, since it is usually used as an example of censorship. But China has actually gone beyond crude censorship. They have essentially built a parallel internet, that only includes the content they want to see, and so blocking sites is relatively redundant, although they do it anyway. They are also known to shut down internet cafes if the users start to act a little too "counterrevolutionary" online. It's worth mentioning that Google (the current owner of blogspot, that hosts this site) is a culprit here too, for setting up their software to help China with its censorship efforts.

North Korea probably doesn't need to censor their internet very much. There is very little access anywhere, and it is only available to the Party elite. In fact, the nation is so closed off to the world that their only public site aimed at the outside world, The Korean Central News Agency, is actually based in Japan.

For pretty much the same reasons, Saddam didn't filter internet content in pre-war Iraq. He didn't have to. Internet was only available in the Cafes, and cost about $1 an hour, which was a lot of money to Iraqis then. That meant that the ones who were freely surfing the net were more likely to be wealthier Baath Party loyalists, with little incentive to rebel anyway. But before you think Saddam was a poster boy for free speech, keep in mind that he completely banned cell phones and satellite dishes, all of which have greatly proliferated since the invasion. The net result has been pretty much mixed, since while they carry the world's news, internet and satellite TV in Iraq also include insurgent run web sites and channels, including the notorious Al-Zawraa network, which I will discuss more fully in another column.

Of course, the West is not immune either. Earlier, I reported on government bullying in Finland. There is also a recent example here in Sweden reported on Gates of Vienna (a minister being disciplined for an anti-Palestinian comment someone else left on his blog). We also saw France try to block sales of war trophies on Yahoo, Germany blocking sales of "Mein Kampf" (although I can be a little forgiving on that one), and in the USA, there have been many cases of libel filed over chat room comments or blogs.

Still, all this pales in comparison to outright blocking of web sites that simply criticize state policy or the state religion. Free access to information does not necessarily make a free world, but it sure doesn't hurt.





Like what you see? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my feed