On October 17, 2004, I tried to access the websites of Belarusian independent media to check the Referendum[1] results. The Internet Explorer browser went blank: the government of Belarus had blocked internet access to these websites to prevent Belarusian citizens and the international community from obtaining truthful information about the way the Referendum and parliamentary elections were held in Belarus. The wheel of history turns back. On the eve of the September 21, 2001 presidential election, the government of Belarus blocked access to the websites of the country’s main independent newspapers and human rights groups supposedly because of a technical problem. The sites became accessible again after the election results were announced.
Many experts in modern communication technologies argue about blocking websites: is it acceptable or not-acceptable, when the governments of some countries block the access to a particular type of information. Most agree, the internet should be regulated. At the same time, national policies and legislature on internet regulation differ from country to country. John McGuire (1999) compared two countries – the United States and Germany -- in his research on internet content regulation. He says, that these countries, while having similar approach to the free speech, have different views on what content they wish to control on the internet. The United States has a focus on pornography; Germany has a focus on extremist political speech. McGuire suggests the adoption of a standardized ratings template, along with the screening software “can help decentralize regulation, empower users to make their own choices about content, and perhaps most importantly, avid more drastic attempts by government to impose internet control through censorship.” (McGuire, 1999).
S. Kalathil and Taylor C. Boas (2001) explored the state control of the internet in authoritarian regimes using case studies of China and Cuba and demonstrating different combinations of reactive and proactive strategies. The case of Belarus is similar: a developing country with a strong autocratic president and a strong regulation of the internet by the government.
I agree, it is important to regulate the internet content using various methods, including blocking, when it concerns sexually explicit content or extremist groups like Nazis. But what about freedom of speech and access the citizens to truthful information?
When the citizens of the country cannot get access to breaking news and news stories criticizing current government, we cannot talk about democracy in this society.
The issue of internet content regulation has both sides and all depends on WHAT should be regulated, HOW and in what are the MEASUREMENTS of regulation a particular content protecting the citizens but not limiting their right on the access to the information.
[1] The Referendum aimed to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (1994, with amendments adopted in 1996) to eliminate the limitation for the President to be elected only for 2 terms, and accordingly, to allow the current President Alexander Lukashenko to run for the President again in 2006.
My five biggest fears about the issue:
- The overregulating of the internet content will limit rights of the citizens to the free information access.
- The governments of different countries have their own vision of regulating internet content that tends to the different understanding of the issue (unified approach needed).
- The authoritarian regime will use the power of internet regulation to keep the citizens under even more strict control than before.
- The work of many people (journalists, web-designers, photographers, etc.) will be in vain because the citizens of some countries will simply not get access to the news.
- Blocked or not blocked? This fear I have every time when access the websites of my favorite Belarusian independent media.
Note: My essay is concentrated on the issues of freedom of political speech on the internet and blocking the websites in regard to this. I do not eliminate importance of blocking sexually explicit content. I just do not stress my attention on this problem right now.
My recommendations:
- To allow countries to make international agreements aiming to unify the blocking rules without suppressing freedom of political speech
- To address the issue of blocking independent news websites by authoritarian regimes internationally; in other words, to raise awarenes about this issue in international community.
- To provide technical and moral support to independent news online media being suppressed in authoritarian regimes from the side of international community.
Web-resources addressing the problem being discussed:
- Belarus: Instuments of Control. International organization Article 19 published a research analysing a collection of legal analysis of freedom of expression legislation in Belarus. This organization was named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and is based in the United Kingdom. It is aimed to combat censorship by promoting freedom of expression and access to the information. Article 19 does a lot of work on analyzing freedom of expression in Belarus. It has produced several detailed reports on abuses of freedom of the media which appear to be a reliable source of information.
- Amnesty International. This organization works to protect human right worldwide including freedom of expression. The website of this organization has a great library where one can find much information on the problem being discussed. For example, I have found State Control of the Internet in China
- Internet blocking prompts concern about what's not seen. By Mike Nixon. This article has been retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database (Lega News section). It describes both -- positive and negative -- sides of blocking the internet sites.
- Freedom House is a non-profit organization that promotes democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House pays much attention to the countries like Belarus, China and other and their human rights problems. It is a good sources of information containing reports, statistics and other data on the problem being discussed.
- Reporters Without Borders is an international organization protecting the rights of journalists. It provides the latest information on the media suppression, violation of journalists' rights and valuable reports. For example, the latest report Internet Under Surveillance is valuable for the given research.
- Belarusian Associaton of Journalists is an organization protecting rights of journalists in Belarus. The website contains the latest news, reports and describes the situation with freedom of expression in this country in an objective way.