Or: We’re from the government—and we’re here to help. In Perspective: Let global online freedom ring?, my former partner, e-commerce law expert Eric Sinrod critiques the proposed Global Online Freedom Act of 2006. Like the hideous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which outlaws US companies or citizens paying bribes to foreign officials even if this is the only way to do business there, the GOFA also uses US citizens and businesses as pawns in an attempt to manipulate the policies of other nations.
Notes Sinrod,
The bill states that its purpose is “to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States business from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes.”
As part of the bill, Congress would make various findings, including:
- “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees freedom ‘to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers’”
The law would allow the President to designate certain foreign countries as “Internet-restricting” regions that are “directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding one-year period.” It would prevent US businesses from engaging in various Internet-related actions in these “Internet-restricting” countries, e.g. locating computer hardware there or modifying search engines or search terms at the request of the host state (gee, I wonder who they have in mind?).Of course, “The bill contemplates potentially serious civil and criminal penalties for violations.”
As Sinrod sensibly notes,
U.S. businesses provide an online service to people in other countries within the given frameworks of those countries. One must think that their presence in these countries and the service they provide is a positive development, even if not perfect, based on any constraints put in place.
To the extent significant penalties are put in place, it is possible that U.S. businesses will retreat from the online services they are providing in other countries. And then, Netizens in those countries might have less, not more, freedom.
Is it realistic to think that Internet-restricting countries will change their restricting policies because U.S. businesses might be penalized because of the restrictions put in place in those countries? The restrictions are established at the government level, and are not directed or controlled by the U.S. businesses.
There might be a better way to seek to achieve global online freedom, notwithstanding the lofty goals of H.R. 4780.
... Its attempt to punish U.S. online businesses in other countries could actually lead to less online freedom, if those companies decide to stop doing business in those countries.
But this is not the end of the problems with the bill. First, it lends support and credibility to the socialistic Universal Declaration of Human Rights [sic] (2, 3), which provides, for example:
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Hey, Congress— let’s just leave this little piece of socialistic yearning alone, shall we?
Moreover, I find it sadly amusing that the US government arrogates to itself the right to identify “Internet-restricting” regions and arrogantly presupposes that it is not one, that it is a beacon of freedom. Hmm, let’s look at the definition of an “Internet-restricting” country: it is one that is “directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom”.
Let’s just call to mind the multifarious ways that US policies and laws “directly or indirectly” “systematically” impose “substantial restrictions” on speech and communications on the Internet—that is, various US government actions/policies/laws that explicitly or implicitly censor, chill, or affect free speech. Immediate examples that come to mind include:
- Copyright law: restricts what and how you can say things. Plus they are pushing other states to ratchet up their own copyright regulations.
- DMCA: restricts you from telling others how to circumvent encryption
- Export controls: US gov’t has regulations criminalizing giving certain information (e.g. encryption technology/software) to other nations, at least without permission
- Political correctness—e.g., antidiscrimination laws, affirmative action laws, and various policies implemented in response to this, such as campus speech codes, etc. It seems to me that the existence of these policies and institutions curtail speech—they make only the most brave, or more likely, those with nothing to lose (losers/marginal nuts)—willing to buck this and say politically incorrect things; most poeple have too much to lose (e.g., jobs, promotions, social standing) to risk it saying controversial things about race, gender, etc.
- Defamation laws (libel, slander)
- Government propaganda—e.g., about democracy, environmentalism—exerts an influence on what speech there is, by brainwashing/propagandizing people. this is exacerbated by the very existence and prevalence of...
- Government schools, which further indoctrinate children (and teachers and parents) with government propaganda.
- Merely having a huge public bureacracy, which tends to sway the views, at least the spoken views, of its hundreds of thousands of employees (e.g., employees of NASA of course believe the government should fund space exploration, etc.).
- Also various tax regulations, such as non-profit regulations. E.g., 501c3 charities and churches and their code of conduct; there is even a video called “Political Intervention: Do’s and Don’ts for 501(c)(3) Organizations” [thanks to Manuel Lora for that one] — example: IRS to churches: Don’t play politics
- in fact, all regulation and taxation of business stifles free speech. Businessmen are intimidated out of ever speaking out publicly because “we have to work with these people.” So they try to get around this by giving money to think tanks to surreptitiously speak for them, but that doesn’t seem so sucessful... [thanks to Tom DiLorenzo for that one] (Tom D also told me, “Milton Friedman had an article on this topic in the Journal of Law and Economics at least 20 years ago but I can’t recall the citation. I think the title may have been “Free Speech and Free Markets” or something like that.” if anyone knows this link, please send to me.)
Pot, meet kettle.
