Has the Global Information Highway been derailed?

Many have predicted that the Internet would spread the ideals of democracy and intellectual freedom around the globe. After all, the Internet affords unprecedented access to information and provides ample opportunity for exchanging ideas via blogs and other communication mediums. But this has not yet happened. Instead, as tech visionaries work towards global on-line libraries, intellectual freedom has become an ever more challenging issue. Different countries define and value intellectual freedom differently—although some library associations overseas do share the ALA’s respect for intellectual freedom. See, IFLA for statements on intellectual freedom by libraries around the globe. And in many countries, including the U.S., privacy concerns may chill truly free exchanges of ideas over the Internet. As a result, the future health of intellectual freedom, and its existence in the age of the Internet, remains uncertain.

China is a prime example of a country that values intellectual freedom differently from the U.S., and certainly the ALA. While China has embraced the Internet as an information tool, it has also effectively quashed its people’s access to and use of politically unpopular material. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 31. In fact, ‘“China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world.”’ (MacKinnon, 2007) quoting (OpenNet Initiative 2005). p. 32. And when filters fail, China chills intellectual freedom through direct oppression and threats of reprisal. One example is Wang Xiaoning, a man who distributed information over the Internet in China. (Anonymous 2007, July). The distribution was supposedly anonymous, but, allegedly, Yahoo! HK gave Wang’s name to the police when asked about the postings—according to Wang, he was arrested, subjected to torture, and sentenced to ten years in prison. (Anonymous, 2007, July).

And China is not alone.

• Syria, Iran, Burma, and Vietnam are also considered “pervasive” filterers. (Fowler , 2008).
• In France, a new law could be applied so as to prevent people from posting violent images on the Internet. (Anonymous, 2007, May).
• Google has voluntarily mimicked Chinese censorship in its Chinese search engine. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 18.
• France has also sought to impose liability on Yahoo! for making Nazi paraphernalia available. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 19.
• Germany has imposed strict liability on Internet service providers (“ISPs”) that unwittingly host copyright infringement. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• ISPs must now filter whatever may be perceived as hate speech from French, German, and Swiss Internet users. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• Australia uses censors and regulators in tandem to find objectionable material and order the Internet provider to remove the content from the site. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21.

“Internet censorship is growing, both in scale and sophistication.” (Haggerty, 2007, November). See also, OpenNet Initiative Maps. In reality, the Internet has become a tool by which governments can promote their own values and traditions, and not a method by which so-called free societies can open closed social systems to free discourse—assuming it is even proper for a country like the U.S. to impose its ideals on another country, like China. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21. See also, (MacKinnon, 2007).

Still, why does it matter to us, and to intellectual freedom here at home, that China censors information on the web? It matters because, in our interconnected global world, many companies, including blog-hosts, are choosing to adjust their policies to accommodate the world’s most restrictive information systems. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. And by doing so, companies have restricted access to content in this country as well. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. It is costly to monitor and distinguish protected versus unprotected sanctionable speech, particularly when the ground rules change at each border. (Kreimer, 2006). Many intermediaries, when faced with the costs involved in keeping all nations happy, are likely to “abandon the effort to avoid errors and adopt a conscious policy of prophylactic self-censorship that blocks any content that could precipitate the threat of sanctions.” (Kreimer, 2006). P. 28. In effect, by corporate proxy, China or France or Germany, and so on, can curtail our intellectual freedom here in the United States.

This is not just speculation. In 2005, Microsoft’s Chinese edition of MSN Spaces blocked a variety of politically sensitive terms (sensitive in China that is) by first issuing a warning to the user, and then by blocking any suspect posting from user access in both China and the United States. It did so by removing each offending post directly from Microsoft’s U.S. servers. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. After the public learned of Microsoft’s complicity with Chinese censors Microsoft changed its policy, somewhat—it now requires a written order from the censoring country and only blocks information from recipients in the censoring country. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. But it appears likely that, absent public outrage, private for-profit companies in the information trade (particularly companies without Microsoft’s resources or public profile) will take the most economically viable path, and not the freest. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28.

Although a U.S. user may ultimately be able to locate information equivalent to that which was censored elsewhere, how information is presented, by whom, and with what frequency all impact how users evaluate information and overall intellectual freedom in this country. Interfering with speech intermediaries is as detrimental to free speech as is silencing the speaker directly—and sometimes more so. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17. A speaker faced with censorship might choose to self edit, or to initiate court action, but an intermediary will most likely choose to remove the offending material in its entirety. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17.

Even worse, we cannot count on our own government to address foreign risks to intellectual freedom at home. Our government has also chosen to inhibit the free flow of electronic speech by pressuring information or speech intermediaries.

• As discussed by Anne, Internet service providers are expected to censor child pornography and filter content directed towards schools for obscenity and information harmful to minors.
• “In 1999, antiterrorism units of the FBI adopted a ‘good corporate citizenship program,’ which empowered them to seek to induce [Internet providers] to censor websites that were constitutionally protected but were not viewed by the FBI as consonant with the public interest.” (Kreimer, 2006). p. 24.
• As mentioned by Holly in our blog segment on the Patriot Act, federal authorities may unilaterally demand that intermediaries turn over communication records without informing the speaker. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 25.
• Our government has also sought to impose criminal liability on persons who assisted with designing Islamic websites. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 26.

Moreover, when intermediaries act as censor, instead of the government, there are no processes currently in place to ensure, for example, that the content removed from a website was really child pornography, and not an artist’s photo album. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 27-28. Because we all now rely on information intermediaries to learn and communicate with others, the intermediaries’ vulnerabilities have become everyone’s problem, including libraries.

Public Internet access in libraries has increased dramatically; a “1998 survey by the American Library Association[(“ALA”)] found that 73 percent of the nation's public libraries, including branches, now offer basic Internet access to their patrons.” (Corne-Revere, n.d.). For librarians, the prevalence of censorship in a medium on which libraries increasing rely raises a variety of ethical issues — issues that, if anyone’s interested, also happen to dovetail nicely with the ALA’s concerns on outsourcing. See, e.g., the ALA 1999 report, Outsourcing & Privatization in American Libraries. As a result, librarians today must question what their moral obligations or duties are in the context of both foreign and domestic Internet censorship.

The ALA has already defined what an ethical member of the professional should do in general terms. Article III and IV of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights (which was discussed in detail in Yashmyn’s blog) read respectively that “[l]ibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment”; and “[l]ibraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.” And if one believes that Internet search tools and content are a form of outsourcing, or are analogous to it, ALA outsourcing reports make it clear that librarians cannot delegate content decisions to vendors and that contractual arrangements for outsourced services must ensure that patrons’ First Amendment rights are preserved. Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999).

The plain language of the first Library Bill of Rights assertion referred to above, and possibly the second, demands pro-activity. As do the ALA reports on outsourcing. Refraining from censorship personally is not enough; librarians must take steps to prevent censorship and privacy violations from occurring, at least within the library.

Therefore, in an age when censorship is occurring by proxy, beyond or outside the prohibitions of the First Amendment, on a service offered by U.S. libraries, but controlled by ISPs and other information intermediaries, the question becomes, must a librarian challenge corporate Internet censorship? As libraries go global and collaborate with other libraries around the world, must a librarian challenge censorship abroad? Under the terms of the Library Bill of Rights, is it ethical to participate in global Internet libraries and not challenge limitations placed on intellectual freedom by other governments? Is it enough to issue a statement through the ALA, or is more required to meet the librarian’s duty to challenge censorship? And, further, do librarians have an obligation to cooperate with political activists agitating for intellectual freedom in China? In Syria? And what does cooperation entail exactly?

Questions like these have been faced in the national arena, but acquire layers of complexity when looked at globally—not to mention the practical question of how effectively librarians in the U.S. can impact information policy in France, for example. Or whether it is realistic to expect librarians to cooperate in a meaningful manner with political dissidents fighting oppressive regimes overseas?

But in the end the stakes remain the same, whether the ethic of intellectual freedom can be meaningfully preserved in our country, as it participates more fully in the modern world.

Additional Questions:

• Do you feel that maintaining intellectual freedom on the Internet is essential for maintaining the vitality of intellectual freedom as an ideal?
• Do you feel it is possible to promote intellectual freedom on the Internet without first addressing conflicting cultural norms around the globe?
• If only some companies censor material in the U.S., does the fact that others are not censoring make the Internet free enough?
• Do librarians have an ethical obligation to research and use only those ISPs that avoid censorship?

Works cited:

ALA (Adopted June 18, 1948, amended February 2, 1961, June 28, 1967, and January 23, 1980). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.

Anonymous. (2007, July). Is it legal? Internet. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(4), 168.

Anonymous. (2007, May). Paris, France. Dateline: foreign. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(3), 125.

Corne-Revere, R. (n.d.). The First Amendment and the Media. Online Issues. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/online_D.html.

Fowler, G.A. (2008, January 4). China tightens web-video rules; private operators brace for new censorship moves, but scope of effort unclear. Wallstreet Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.

Haggerty, K. (2007, November). As states encroach on Internet governance around the world, IDRC is supporting a major new initiative that will investigate the impacts of Internet censorship in Asia. The International Research Development Centre. Retrieved on February 18, 2008, from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-116735-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.

Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999). Response to the resolution in counsel document #24: Outsourcing and privatization in American libraries. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/outsourcing/Default2446.htm.

Kreimer, S.F. (2006). Censorship by proxy: The first amendment, internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review., 155(11), 12-101.

MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134, 31-46.