How free speech on the Internet is in jeopardy

[serryjw]

A couple of years ago someone argued with me that governments could never control/censor the contents/access to the Internet. Obviously they were wrong. No surprise that their is lots of problems around the world. The growing US interest (in the name of homeland security!) controlling our access is obvious after Patriots 1...and getting more intrusive everyday.I started using dogpile because I believed that Google is getting to powerful and is censoring my results.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10612

[Syrinx]

1. I've been saying this for a long time

The internet is too powerful for the tolerance of world governments, and that it will be changed radically in the not-too-distant future. And terrorism will be the excuse used for clamping down on it. Or maybe copyright protection, but the effect will be the same.

[serryjw]

4. Last 3 years without the Internet??

Think how different it would have been. We could not have know 10% of what we know about 9-11, we could have not organized millions across the world to protest the invasion, we could not tracked and protest this administrations policies.......we would have never have 'met'...this is an unbelievable blessing. We must not take it for granted and be vigilant in its preservation.

[theivoryqueen]

2. I always liked the dogpile! it seems to give me better results.

[acmavm]

3. The powers that be are going to have to censor the internet, it allows

people to much access to toooo much information. Controlling the access to information is important in a fascist nation, no matter who the fascists happen to be.

People think that fascist is too strong a word, but it really isn't. When free speech is punished, when rights and freedoms are taken away, when the people are treated as nothing more than serfs working for their masters (corporate America), when you have to be afraid that your own government is sneaking into your home (and they've created the Patriot Act just for that purpose, among many other sinister purposes), when the government blatantly lies to the people, and when the access to information is limited and censored by the government, I'd say that was fascism.

Here is the definition of fascism:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Sound familiar?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Sound familiar?

Sounds like here.

"This "the U.S. Constitution" is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
Benjamin Franklin

[serryjw]

6. We have arrived.....

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
and let's not forget the failed "Bring 'em on!"

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Ashcroft refuses to give Congress torture memo
July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: The United States on Tuesday suspended military assistance to nearly 50 countries, because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.
Outsourcing Torture: Contractors act as interrogators: Defense Department turned to private sources to question prisoners for intelligence gathering.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detention
Who is a terrorist under the PATRIOT ACT
Guantanamo Eyes Possible Execution Chamber

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[delhurgo]

7. I have alot of concern about the U.S. govt, but at least

we have the 1st Amen - if its enforced.

Another threat though that many don't know about is attempts by the United Nations to control the internet. They would then try to impose European standards of free speech and political correctness on the whole internet which would be much more restrictive than what were use to here in the U.S.

That something we've gotta really avoid being a part of. We wanna be good neighbors and part of the world community, but we definitely don't wanna live by their laws, especially regarding free speech.

[serryjw]

8. NO we don't!

There are 2 sides to the first amendment. What you and I can say is doing pretty good. They other side as for a free unbridled press is failing miserably....and will get worse if Bushit is re-selected.

[delhurgo]

11. I don't really understand your post.

I agree that monopolies and big money is a problem for a free press, but I didn't mention anything about that in my post. I also agree that Bush would be bad for free speech because he is much more likely to appoint justices that have a much more narrow view of the 1st Amend - we don't need no more Scalias.

But my point was about the United Nations and how they want to take control of the net and impose tolerance, equal rights, etc... Thats a danger too and one that is already causing problems. Many European countries are trying to use the courts to close down 'hate sites', etc... on the net in the U.S. You may have read about some of these cases in the news re Yahoo, Ebay,... for instance. Anyhow, thats all my point was.

You don't want to give control of the internet over to the U.N. do you? The U.S. is the only country in the world, that I know of, with a 1st Amend - at the very top of our Bill of Rights. I don't wanna see any world authority be able to overrule that.

[serryjw]

13. I was ONLY respnding to your statement

I have alot of concern about the U.S. govt, but at least


we have the 1st Amen - if its enforced.

As for the UN...I agree 100%

[delhurgo]

12. Here, this is the best article I could find:

Should the United Nations run the Internet?

"Their demands varied, but the bottom line was the same: They want a piece of the action in just about every way. The event's agenda was breathtakingly broad, taking in everything from spam and privacy to intellectual property, network security and the operation of root domain name servers.

It is highly symbolic that the United Nations' climactic summit next year will meet in Tunisia, a state that blocks access to many Web sites, spies on its citizens' e-mail and closely controls Internet service providers. The group Reporters Without Borders calls Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali a "predator of press freedom" and claims that he allowed Zouhair Yahyaoui, editor of news site TUNeZINE, to be arrested and tortured.

At next year's event, I'm sure that Tunisian politicians will be happy to share their experiences in how a free and open Internet should be run."

MORE...

[moondust]

9. Google going public.

I don't think I like this idea very much. Once publicly traded they'll have to please all those faceless, indifferent, moneygrubbing stockholders by pursuing basically one overriding goal: profits. They'll also be subject to more governmental control via the SEC, etc. I expect it to change for the worse as Wall Street and perhaps the gov't chip away at their independence.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

10. The govt and the press hate the internet

For the first time in history, free speech exists and they don't like that. They want to return to the days when regular people had to go thru the media filter to get their views out to the public.

[MsUSA]

14. We're not in an information age......

we're in the power age.....information is power and the internet brings the information, thus internet = power. These words were said by Howard Dean's political campaign adviser. Smart guy. Joe Trippy (sp) I think.