The Freedom of the Internet
One of the recent themes of this largely formless blog has been the growing attempt on the part of authorities to find a legitimate justification to control the internet.
Politicians across the world have been almost funny in their sinister reach for the various arguments people use when they want to take free speech into protective custody. So, for instance, we've had the protection of children; protection from stalking and harassment; the provision of something more convenient than libel; a need to protect people from being misled; and the need to strike at criminal and terrorist networks, who obviously spend a great deal of time blogging.
In Italy, the state has attempted to use fiscal and regulatory market power to licence and tax bloggers, though this effort failed. In Britain, the government, acting under the cover of the protection of property in copyright, has attempted unsuccessfully to get internet service providers to regulate and to restrict internet downloads in a way that could be turned against bloggers.
There have been persistent stories since 2000 that the British government quite merrily break into e-mail accounts and read mail liberally. My reaction to this has been not to be too bothered; if you send an e-mail, you may as well send a postcard. I would also expect security services to do that sort of thing. However, as at Guantanamo Bay, in a different context, if they actually tried to turn a pathological behaviour into a righteous and universally applicable law, I would feel diminished and corrupted.
I have what is, I suppose, a catholic attitude to privacy. Its not lost if I am not forced to agree in some protestant fashion that it could be, and could be righteously, and if I don't know of or am not forced to look at, snoops. I thought that I might explain that; but that aside, things have been going on in Brazil. There, and in South Korea, the forces of power that truth is rarely spoken to have come out into the open.
South Korea's proposals to control the net follow on the rapid decline in President Lee-Myung Bak's popularity over the past few months, in itself a consequence of cyber-protest. I've linked to a New Zealand article rather than the Guardian's messy contribution this morning, because I think that it puts things into focus.
The South Korean experience suggests, for once, that English law has things about right. The problem in that Asian republic was that, given the freedom of the net, some protestors had taken to vilifying, harassing and invading the privacy of individuals of whom they disapproved. This then 'flashed' into group and mob based physical harassment. The new law would provide for restrictions not only on such behaviour but on the anonymity, words, and image use of all bloggers.
In this country, those matters are controlled by three separate things.
The first is the emerging body of law relating to the balance between privacy and freedom of expression most recently seen in the Max Mosley case. It is associated with the libel fields in which it has grown, but it is clearly a plant fixing something different from that soil. I like the idea of a balance between Article 8 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, absolute provisions usually leading by nature to immoderate things, and I think that Mr Justice Eady got things about right.
Secondly, libel itself in England and Wales is something that makes bloggers think twice about slander; but if they have a defence, or are assured that their case is in the public interest, or have the sense to hold off from personal, unfounded and invasive attacks, the law will generally protect them.
In those circumstances where writers have been found at fault, for instance where people in the middle east have sued Americans in English courts, the careful reader will note that this resulted judgment in default. This was because the respondent did not--could not--turn up in court. They can always apply to have the judgment overturned (there are cases in which judgments have been overturned after decades) and they cannot be pursued for any costs or monies in America.
Third, as this blog has noted before, the provisions of the Malicious Communications Act and other bits of stalking legislation now apply, and the police will, if files are presented, investigate allegations and deploy warnings.
My worry about this sort of thing is that the police have also taken to trying to apply other restrictions based on anti-discrimination legislation to bloggers, and if they were sufficiently determined, I wonder if an internet or blog service provider would actually resist calls to censor or delete a blog. AOL's message boards certainly don't seem to as yet, and blogger doesn't either. The police, however, are not above using blog and stalking legislation when on fishing expeditions, even against conspiracists.
My advice to anyone thinking of getting involved with the libel courts is not to. Even if you have a rock-solid case, you could spend a fortune and get very little in return, though I understand that sometimes there is a point to libel. Given the way the English press behave, I'm glad we had no Peter Zenger here. Making papers behave with something approximating basic reporting standards under the fear of libel is ultimately better than regulating them by statute.
However, generally, libel is a nineteenth-century device to uphold the reputation of gentlemen which was incumbent upon those against whom moral criticisms were alleged under Queen Victoria; it has precious little to do with protecting reputations today. If you are offended by something, make your points and look away, and if you are being stalked, tell the police not your solicitor. People who aren't lawyers very often come out badly from civil lawsuits. Only if absolute, and devastating serious lies are told about you and you have no other recourse should you go to the courts.
The other side of that is that, when libel is so expensive or so rarely pursued, a genuine choice between publication and suppression becomes a gamble weighted in favour of publication, but not so much that people can behave with complete abandon. If they do, and their pockets are deep, then they can be punished for their lack of judgment. I like that sort of vague but judicious balance much more than I would a world of clear and restrictive rules.
As I keep writing, the freedom of blogland is under threat. It suits all of us, whether we agree or disagree, to resist this threat, and to keep a space where we can think and talk freely. Any nod to those who wish for others to be guided by law because they can't be bothered to guide themselves, and those wolves I mentioned who want to extend restriction will take their opportunity.
Look at what happens in other fields. The attitude starts with silly, money-based reactions to a clearly dark and violent Batman film, or an error in an Elmo; it proceeds through a false respect agenda; and it ends, bizarrely with you and I not being able to speak.
One of the recent themes of this largely formless blog has been the growing attempt on the part of authorities to find a legitimate justification to control the internet.
Politicians across the world have been almost funny in their sinister reach for the various arguments people use when they want to take free speech into protective custody. So, for instance, we've had the protection of children; protection from stalking and harassment; the provision of something more convenient than libel; a need to protect people from being misled; and the need to strike at criminal and terrorist networks, who obviously spend a great deal of time blogging.
In Italy, the state has attempted to use fiscal and regulatory market power to licence and tax bloggers, though this effort failed. In Britain, the government, acting under the cover of the protection of property in copyright, has attempted unsuccessfully to get internet service providers to regulate and to restrict internet downloads in a way that could be turned against bloggers.
There have been persistent stories since 2000 that the British government quite merrily break into e-mail accounts and read mail liberally. My reaction to this has been not to be too bothered; if you send an e-mail, you may as well send a postcard. I would also expect security services to do that sort of thing. However, as at Guantanamo Bay, in a different context, if they actually tried to turn a pathological behaviour into a righteous and universally applicable law, I would feel diminished and corrupted.
I have what is, I suppose, a catholic attitude to privacy. Its not lost if I am not forced to agree in some protestant fashion that it could be, and could be righteously, and if I don't know of or am not forced to look at, snoops. I thought that I might explain that; but that aside, things have been going on in Brazil. There, and in South Korea, the forces of power that truth is rarely spoken to have come out into the open.
South Korea's proposals to control the net follow on the rapid decline in President Lee-Myung Bak's popularity over the past few months, in itself a consequence of cyber-protest. I've linked to a New Zealand article rather than the Guardian's messy contribution this morning, because I think that it puts things into focus.
The South Korean experience suggests, for once, that English law has things about right. The problem in that Asian republic was that, given the freedom of the net, some protestors had taken to vilifying, harassing and invading the privacy of individuals of whom they disapproved. This then 'flashed' into group and mob based physical harassment. The new law would provide for restrictions not only on such behaviour but on the anonymity, words, and image use of all bloggers.
In this country, those matters are controlled by three separate things.
The first is the emerging body of law relating to the balance between privacy and freedom of expression most recently seen in the Max Mosley case. It is associated with the libel fields in which it has grown, but it is clearly a plant fixing something different from that soil. I like the idea of a balance between Article 8 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, absolute provisions usually leading by nature to immoderate things, and I think that Mr Justice Eady got things about right.
Secondly, libel itself in England and Wales is something that makes bloggers think twice about slander; but if they have a defence, or are assured that their case is in the public interest, or have the sense to hold off from personal, unfounded and invasive attacks, the law will generally protect them.
In those circumstances where writers have been found at fault, for instance where people in the middle east have sued Americans in English courts, the careful reader will note that this resulted judgment in default. This was because the respondent did not--could not--turn up in court. They can always apply to have the judgment overturned (there are cases in which judgments have been overturned after decades) and they cannot be pursued for any costs or monies in America.
Third, as this blog has noted before, the provisions of the Malicious Communications Act and other bits of stalking legislation now apply, and the police will, if files are presented, investigate allegations and deploy warnings.
My worry about this sort of thing is that the police have also taken to trying to apply other restrictions based on anti-discrimination legislation to bloggers, and if they were sufficiently determined, I wonder if an internet or blog service provider would actually resist calls to censor or delete a blog. AOL's message boards certainly don't seem to as yet, and blogger doesn't either. The police, however, are not above using blog and stalking legislation when on fishing expeditions, even against conspiracists.
My advice to anyone thinking of getting involved with the libel courts is not to. Even if you have a rock-solid case, you could spend a fortune and get very little in return, though I understand that sometimes there is a point to libel. Given the way the English press behave, I'm glad we had no Peter Zenger here. Making papers behave with something approximating basic reporting standards under the fear of libel is ultimately better than regulating them by statute.
However, generally, libel is a nineteenth-century device to uphold the reputation of gentlemen which was incumbent upon those against whom moral criticisms were alleged under Queen Victoria; it has precious little to do with protecting reputations today. If you are offended by something, make your points and look away, and if you are being stalked, tell the police not your solicitor. People who aren't lawyers very often come out badly from civil lawsuits. Only if absolute, and devastating serious lies are told about you and you have no other recourse should you go to the courts.
The other side of that is that, when libel is so expensive or so rarely pursued, a genuine choice between publication and suppression becomes a gamble weighted in favour of publication, but not so much that people can behave with complete abandon. If they do, and their pockets are deep, then they can be punished for their lack of judgment. I like that sort of vague but judicious balance much more than I would a world of clear and restrictive rules.
As I keep writing, the freedom of blogland is under threat. It suits all of us, whether we agree or disagree, to resist this threat, and to keep a space where we can think and talk freely. Any nod to those who wish for others to be guided by law because they can't be bothered to guide themselves, and those wolves I mentioned who want to extend restriction will take their opportunity.
Look at what happens in other fields. The attitude starts with silly, money-based reactions to a clearly dark and violent Batman film, or an error in an Elmo; it proceeds through a false respect agenda; and it ends, bizarrely with you and I not being able to speak.
Comments