Internet freedom is a basic human right
JUST over a year ago, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a new global commitment to internet freedom. Based on the universal human rights framework, internet freedom applies the freedoms of assembly, expression, and association to cyberspace.
By Jerry P. Lanier
JUST over a year ago, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a new global commitment to internet freedom. Based on the universal human rights framework, internet freedom applies the freedoms of assembly, expression, and association to cyberspace.
By preserving these rights in the digital era, we preserve the promise and the possibility of the Internet as a platform for ideas, innovation, connection, and economic growth.
The Internet has become part of ordinary discourse of the 21st century — it is our global town square.
People around the world come together on the Internet, everyday to connect to one another, sample a universe of news and information and to make their voices heard.
And through this discourse, be it online or in person, new dimensions of centuries-long debates re-emerge: how best to govern, administer justice, pursue prosperity, and create the conditions for long-term progress, both within and across borders. The choices governments make today will determine the face of the Internet in the future.
Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go to their city squares and criticise their government without fear of retribution.
Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and thus, created new targets for censorship.
Internet freedom without government obstruction is a basic human right. In fact, having the freedom to connect to the Internet is akin to the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace.
The choices we face are familiar, but the means by which we confront them is not. How do we protect: liberty and security? Transparency and confidentiality? Freedom of expression while fostering tolerance and harmony?
First, too often liberty and security are seen as mutually exclusive, but we must have both to have either, both online and offline. It is no secret that “security†is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on internet freedom.
Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit or close off access to information under the guise of maintaining security are fooling no one. Silencing ideas does not make them go away. We must have enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much as to endanger them. In the balance between liberty and security, the fulcrum is the rule of law.
Second, we must protect both transparency and confidentiality. Transparency is important. We can and should give citizens information about their governments. But confidentiality is also paramount.
Governments do have a higher standard to meet when invoking confidentiality, because they serve the public. But all governments require some degree of confidentiality when dealing with matters such as public safety and national security.
Third, we must seek to protect free expression while at the same time fostering tolerance. Just like a town square, the internet is home to every kind of speech: false, offensive, constructive and innovative. There is no question, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people have the right to freedom of expression and it must be protected. We believe the best way to do this is to promote more speech, not to limit it. Exposing and challenging offensive speech, rather than suppressing it, allows for public scrutiny and response.
For the US, the choice is clear. We place ourselves on the side of openness. As we move forward and the universal town square of the Internet continues to flourish, we are confident that we can protect and advance the principles of liberty and security; transparency and confidentiality; and free speech and tolerance. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open global community.
The writer is the US ambassador
JUST over a year ago, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a new global commitment to internet freedom. Based on the universal human rights framework, internet freedom applies the freedoms of assembly, expression, and association to cyberspace.
By preserving these rights in the digital era, we preserve the promise and the possibility of the Internet as a platform for ideas, innovation, connection, and economic growth.
The Internet has become part of ordinary discourse of the 21st century — it is our global town square.
People around the world come together on the Internet, everyday to connect to one another, sample a universe of news and information and to make their voices heard.
And through this discourse, be it online or in person, new dimensions of centuries-long debates re-emerge: how best to govern, administer justice, pursue prosperity, and create the conditions for long-term progress, both within and across borders. The choices governments make today will determine the face of the Internet in the future.
Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go to their city squares and criticise their government without fear of retribution.
Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and thus, created new targets for censorship.
Internet freedom without government obstruction is a basic human right. In fact, having the freedom to connect to the Internet is akin to the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace.
The choices we face are familiar, but the means by which we confront them is not. How do we protect: liberty and security? Transparency and confidentiality? Freedom of expression while fostering tolerance and harmony?
First, too often liberty and security are seen as mutually exclusive, but we must have both to have either, both online and offline. It is no secret that “security†is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on internet freedom.
Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit or close off access to information under the guise of maintaining security are fooling no one. Silencing ideas does not make them go away. We must have enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much as to endanger them. In the balance between liberty and security, the fulcrum is the rule of law.
Second, we must protect both transparency and confidentiality. Transparency is important. We can and should give citizens information about their governments. But confidentiality is also paramount.
Governments do have a higher standard to meet when invoking confidentiality, because they serve the public. But all governments require some degree of confidentiality when dealing with matters such as public safety and national security.
Third, we must seek to protect free expression while at the same time fostering tolerance. Just like a town square, the internet is home to every kind of speech: false, offensive, constructive and innovative. There is no question, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people have the right to freedom of expression and it must be protected. We believe the best way to do this is to promote more speech, not to limit it. Exposing and challenging offensive speech, rather than suppressing it, allows for public scrutiny and response.
For the US, the choice is clear. We place ourselves on the side of openness. As we move forward and the universal town square of the Internet continues to flourish, we are confident that we can protect and advance the principles of liberty and security; transparency and confidentiality; and free speech and tolerance. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open global community.
The writer is the US ambassador