The Freedom of expression in cyberspace

We all think, apart from the cost of our connection, blogging is the freedom to publish what we want to ,where we want to ,and at no cost.

Thanks to Kevin Anderson for providing the complimentary tickets to the event


For some bloggers that isn't the case.In solitary confinement and constantly blindfolded,Iranian blogger Sina Montalebi was told by his interrogators,that it has a high cost.The loss of his liberty and threats to his family.

Speaking at the globally web cast event at Amnesty International in London last night" Some people think that the Internet is a bad thing", Sina said he was unaware which particular article had upset the authorities. He was told that he was being made a scapegoat and an example to other bloggers not to discuss banned subjects.

"More and more governments are realising the utility of what people see online",according to Uk Campaigns Director Tim Hancock.

Far from giving power to the people, the Internet has given the power and the technology to governments to stop the dissemination of opinion.Ron Deibert from Open Net Initiative described the Internet as "no longer the preserve of freedom of speech,instead it has been carved up,colonised and militarised by the authorities"

Amnesty International launched their campaign for the freedom of expression in cyberspace 12 months ago in conjunction with the Observer.Since that time 68,000 people have signed up online to support the campaign.


Its latest report on Internet filtering shows that at least 25 countries now apply state mandated net filtering including Azerbaijan,Bahrain,Burma,Ethiopia,India,Iran,Morocco,Saudi Arabia,South Korea,Thailand and Tunisia.

The organisation also condemns the complicity of Western organisations such as Google,Microsoft and Yahoo in assisting the authorities in censoring and monitoring internet traffic.Morton Sklar reported his attempts to highlight corporate complicity in the United States.

He is currently bringing a law suit against Yahoo on behalf of the husband of Yu Ling,jailed in China for publishing subversive comments.The company is accused of providing the names and addresses of people who have exchanged human rights information on the web.

The Company argues that we did what we were asked to do in order to do business in China.Sklar describes this as "the following orders defence" akin to "Nazi Germany".

However the alternative opinion is that it is better to have some presence in a country such as China as non at all. At least the internet has allowed some opinion in the country.The problem occurs as to where you draw the line when a company becomes implicit in human rights abuses.

The freedoms that the Internet provides are being eroded and the issues raised at the conference could well become one of the most important of the 21st century.