Censorship: When in Rome?
Yesterday I edited a synopsis of a most disturbing bill working its way through the Italian legislature.
A center-right Italian senator from Sicily is backing a bill that would give the country’s Ministry of the Interior the power to demand ISPs in
Italy block sites which host content seen to incite or condone crime.
Facebook seems to be the primary target. The American social networking platform allows registered users to form fan groups around just about any idea. Among the most offending groups to these Italian lawmakers are groups honoring big-name Mafia bosses.
Unless Facebook would agree to take those groups down - and the Ministry of the Interior would indeed have to give sites like Facebook time to take down the offending content - the entire site would be blocked inside Italy.
Deleting entire websites because of a bit of offensive material seems an entirely arcane practice for 2009.
But the situation does for me beg the question: In today's linked-up world, should multinational sites like Facebook (and, to be clear, while all websites have the potential to be multinational, few truly are) have to abide by the laws of countries other than the nation in which their servers sit? Which is to say,should a website based in the United States, like Facebook, have to regulate its content with Italian law in mind?
I’m reminded of a November, 2008, New York Times article about censorship at Google.
In the Republic of Turkey, a nation of 71 million people, it is illegal to insult Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He is the founder of modern Turkey.
Google, apparently, has dedicated the hours of many staffers to screening the contents of YouTube videos that are reported to violate Turkish law. The videos which
Google decides are in clear violation of Turkish law are then blocked in Turkey.
The article chronicles similar cases in Europe. In France and Germany, for example, Google blocks Holocaust denial sites because it is illegal to deny the Shoah in those countries.
But is a California-based company like Google - or a Ministry of the Interior in Italy - the best body to decide what to censor?
Germany has a government agency whose responsibility it is to gather URLs of sites that host illegal content (content including hate speech, for example, would be illegal in Deutschland). Is this a better way to go? Why not get a judicial system involved? Or would that take too long, particularly when considering the warp speed that dominates the World Wide Web?
These questions become even more difficult - or perhaps just less relevant? - when considering the many initiatives to circumvent censorship. One of the best initiatives is the Tor project, which helps Internet users surf the web anonymously.
I would love to know what ENJN members think about this. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts. Should a website based in the Netherlands, for example, have to regulate its content with Turkish laws in mind?
---
Flickr images from wfbakker2 and Larsz
A center-right Italian senator from Sicily is backing a bill that would give the country’s Ministry of the Interior the power to demand ISPs in
Italy block sites which host content seen to incite or condone crime.Facebook seems to be the primary target. The American social networking platform allows registered users to form fan groups around just about any idea. Among the most offending groups to these Italian lawmakers are groups honoring big-name Mafia bosses.
Unless Facebook would agree to take those groups down - and the Ministry of the Interior would indeed have to give sites like Facebook time to take down the offending content - the entire site would be blocked inside Italy.
Deleting entire websites because of a bit of offensive material seems an entirely arcane practice for 2009.
But the situation does for me beg the question: In today's linked-up world, should multinational sites like Facebook (and, to be clear, while all websites have the potential to be multinational, few truly are) have to abide by the laws of countries other than the nation in which their servers sit? Which is to say,should a website based in the United States, like Facebook, have to regulate its content with Italian law in mind?
I’m reminded of a November, 2008, New York Times article about censorship at Google.
In the Republic of Turkey, a nation of 71 million people, it is illegal to insult Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He is the founder of modern Turkey.
Google, apparently, has dedicated the hours of many staffers to screening the contents of YouTube videos that are reported to violate Turkish law. The videos which
Google decides are in clear violation of Turkish law are then blocked in Turkey.The article chronicles similar cases in Europe. In France and Germany, for example, Google blocks Holocaust denial sites because it is illegal to deny the Shoah in those countries.
But is a California-based company like Google - or a Ministry of the Interior in Italy - the best body to decide what to censor?
Germany has a government agency whose responsibility it is to gather URLs of sites that host illegal content (content including hate speech, for example, would be illegal in Deutschland). Is this a better way to go? Why not get a judicial system involved? Or would that take too long, particularly when considering the warp speed that dominates the World Wide Web?
These questions become even more difficult - or perhaps just less relevant? - when considering the many initiatives to circumvent censorship. One of the best initiatives is the Tor project, which helps Internet users surf the web anonymously.
I would love to know what ENJN members think about this. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts. Should a website based in the Netherlands, for example, have to regulate its content with Turkish laws in mind?
---
Flickr images from wfbakker2 and Larsz
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Serge Lunin on February 24, 2009 at 16:17 -
You ask about freedom and that's one of the most difficult questions. People must not be allowed to put on the web everything they want. There ought to be some boundaries.
On the other hand countries like Turkey are no benchmark. Turkey is a country that still exists in 19th century with some changes - one of them that oppression of religious minorities was switched for that of national ones.
If the West cared not only for freedom of speech but also for truth Turkey would have been punished severely for all its crimes against Armenians, Greeks and Kurds (the latter still suffer btw). But Western media prefer not to notice those crimes.
So what has Google to do? If it doesn't comply with Turkish law Turks will lose access to Youtube. I think it's better for them to keep it as it is.
© 2012 Created by Arne Grauls.
You need to be a member of Journalism Network to add comments!
Join Journalism Network