Internet Censorship: American Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

Internet Censorship: American Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

In a recent interview, college student Allison White articulated her concerns regarding internet censorship, stating, "I think that internet censorship goes against everything the internet stands for. The internet allows people to look up and discover anything and everything that is on their mind." This sentiment resonates with many advocates for digital freedom. Yet, while U.S. authorities publicly endorse such views, their actions often tell a different story. In her Remarks on Internet Freedom, Hillary Clinton emphasized that "the United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish." However, the reality is that the U.S. government frequently undermines its own rhetoric by supporting legislation that threatens internet freedom, all while criticizing nations like China and Iran for their censorship practices. The contradiction lies in the U.S. government's promotion of internet freedom while simultaneously enacting laws that can stifle it, engaging in selective outrage over censorship based on geopolitical interests, and allowing American companies to contribute to global internet censorship.

The Evolution of Free Speech in the Digital Age

Before the advent of the internet, expressing thoughts to a broad audience was a formidable challenge. Howard Zinn noted in his book, Failure to Quit, "Money is crucial for freedom of speech: with it one can buy prime television time; without it one communicates in the streets, subject to police power." The internet revolutionized this dynamic, allowing individuals to voice their opinions without the need for traditional media platforms. Today, anyone with internet access can share their thoughts through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which facilitate the dissemination of opinions globally. However, not all governments embrace this newfound freedom; many have instituted censorship measures to control the narrative and suppress dissent. In contrast, the United States has historically championed freedom of speech, exemplified by the First Amendment, which guarantees individuals the right to express themselves freely. The U.S. has sought to extend these principles to the digital realm as well. As noted by Madeline Bersch and Matthew Wallin, "The United States plays a strong role in promoting censorship circumvention, funding programs and tools advancing Internet freedom, countering Internet censorship, supporting secure communications, and contributing to policy and research programs for those facing censorship."

The Controversial SOPA Bill

On January 18, 2012, WordPress.com and several other sites went dark for 24 hours to protest the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). This bill, largely supported by Hollywood interests facing revenue losses due to online piracy, posed a significant threat to internet freedom. All Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election opposed SOPA, with Senator Mitt Romney describing it as "far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening to the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet." The primary concern was the bill's vague language, which could lead to excessive censorship.

The bill empowered the Attorney General to shut down websites outside U.S. jurisdiction that were allegedly infringing on copyrights. This broad definition allowed for the potential censorship of platforms that merely facilitated user-generated content. For instance, a comment box or an image upload feature could be deemed infringing, leading to the closure of entire sites based on user actions. Furthermore, if the Attorney General ordered a site takedown, internet service providers would have to block access within five days, search engines would need to remove all references to the site, and payment processors would have to halt transactions associated with it. This could create a chilling effect on free expression online, as illustrated by the example of WikiLeaks, which could face unprecedented censorship under SOPA.

The Implications of SOPA

According to the SOPA act, any site that allows user-generated content could be labeled as "primarily designed for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables copyright violation." This means that platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and even Wikipedia could fall under the government's scrutiny for merely facilitating user interaction. The implications are staggering; the act effectively criminalizes common internet usage and stifles innovation. Chris Heald, writing for Mashable, argued that "this bill turns us all into criminals." The dangers of SOPA extend beyond copyright enforcement, threatening the very foundation of internet freedom.

Selective Outrage and International Censorship

While American authorities vocalize their commitment to internet freedom, they often remain silent on censorship practices in allied nations. For instance, in April 2011, the Ugandan government threatened to shut down Facebook and Twitter during civil unrest over rising food prices. Similarly, the UK witnessed calls for social media shutdowns following police-related riots. Yet, a review of U.S. State Department statements reveals little concern for internet freedom in these instances.

The U.S. government has consistently highlighted the importance of internet freedom in its foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, in her 2011 speech, emphasized the "freedom to connect" as a priority and allocated $25 million in grants to support activists combating internet repression. However, when it comes to domestic internet freedom, the government has remained largely passive, providing little support for tools that would help citizens bypass censorship from their own providers. Benjamin Cramer aptly noted, "There will be no 'Internet in a Suitcase' on the home front."

American Companies and Global Censorship

American corporations also play a troubling role in the global censorship landscape. The Great Firewall of China, a notorious government-imposed censorship system, was partially developed with the assistance of U.S. companies. Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have faced significant criticism for their complicity in enabling China's censorship practices. Yahoo!, in particular, came under fire for providing information to the Chinese government that led to the imprisonment of a journalist. Their justification—that compliance with local laws is a business necessity—highlights a troubling moral compromise.

In 2018, Google attempted to launch a censored search engine in China, known as "Dragonfly," which would have filtered out content related to human rights and democracy. Although employee protests ultimately derailed the project, the willingness of American companies to engage in censorship for profit raises critical questions about their commitment to internet freedom at home.

The Reality of U.S. Internet Dominance

Despite the U.S. government's professed commitment to a free internet, its dominance raises concerns among other nations, fearing the imposition of American political agendas through digital channels. This has led to the development of alternative internet solutions that often align with governmental interests, resulting in increased censorship. For example, Russia's Yandex operates alongside Google, while countries like Iran have resorted to outright bans on American services in favor of state-controlled alternatives.

Attempts to curb American corporate complicity in global censorship have been met with limited success. The Global Internet Freedom Act, introduced in 2011, aimed to prevent U.S. businesses from assisting authoritarian regimes in blocking internet access. Unfortunately, the bill has languished in legislative limbo without meaningful progress. Similarly, the Internet Freedom Act proposed by Republicans sought to limit the Federal Communications Commission's ability to regulate the internet, undermining efforts to preserve net neutrality.

The Future of Internet Freedom

In conclusion, the United States frequently touts its commitment to internet freedom, yet legislative actions and corporate behavior often contradict this stance. The attempted implementation of SOPA, various proposed bills that threaten free expression, and the complicity of American companies in global censorship efforts underscore a hypocrisy that cannot be overlooked. As Hillary Clinton remarked in her email to the Times, "We see more and more people around the globe using the Internet... to make their voices heard as they protest against injustice." For true internet freedom to be realized, it is imperative that the U.S. government refrains from unwarranted censorship and allows individuals the right to explore, share, and express their opinions without fear of retribution.

References:

• Zinn, Howard. Failure to Quit.
• Bersch, Madeline, and Wallin, Matthew. "Internet Freedom and U.S. Policy."
• Heald, Chris. "The Dangers of SOPA." Mashable.
• Cramer, Benjamin. "Internet Freedom: A Distant Dream?"
• James, Randy. "The Great Firewall and Its Implications."