First Amendment

Frustrated politicians, worldwide, are whipsawing Google seeking Internet censorship as solutions to the problems they perceive are confronting their nation.

Ironically, the latest demand for censorship comes from American Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). No doubt frustrated by our devastating debacle in Iraq, his inability to persuade Americans that creating an Iran debacle is a good idea, and fearful about the strategic shifts occurring in the Middle East has focused on Google, demanding it censor users' videos.

Evidently, Senator Lieberman thinks Google can set up some sort of review board and pass judgment on which users' videos it thinks are Muslim religious fanatic recruiting videos and remove them from YouTube¹.

Google need not and should not engage these futile, silly, and harebrained demands to conform the Internet's information to each politician's or nation's definition of unwanted or uncontrollable "propaganda".²

The solution for America and all other nations is simple and direct—zero censorship of the Internet's information. If the Internet is being used to commit crimes then nations should cooperate to ensure warrants issue and prosecution follows in accordance with the rule of law.

Web:

• UPDATED 05/20/2008 AP, Cisco Systems denies online censorship role in China. Cisco denies helping China censor—Google's Deputy General Counsel, Nicole Wong, says Google is working hard to avoid censorship and stresses four points:

  • "First, our products are above all else platforms for free expression and access to information."
  • "Second, a wide range of legal and cultural barriers around the world regarding the free flow of information impact our products and services every day."
  • "Third, we are working hard to respond to these challenges through policies and technology that promote free expression."

    • Misblog commentary and not part of Wong's statement: The third point is very important to free speech—the uncontrolled and uncontrollable tools to circumvent all nations' censorship.

      While politicians, worldwide, engage in a perpetual debate on what constitutes censorship we can use these tools to ensure ALL information flows friction free through the Internet, including their perpetual debate on censorship. (see Lieberman's perpetual debate response to Google LIEBERMAN RESPONDS TO GOOGLE. Google and Americans should just ignore but not censor the senator from Connecticut on the issue of censorship.)

  • "And finally, we believe that governments around the world can and must do more to effectively reduce internet censorship and promote free expression online."--Go Nicole and Google--

• Lieberman called on Google to remove Internet video

Blog: CNet, Senator targets YouTube, but law not on his side

-----notes-----

1. Senator Lieberman's demand must seem confusing, if not inconsistent or hypocritical, to Google executives considering Yahoo's recent verbal lashing from the late Congressman Tom Lantos (deceased February 11, 2008) for assisting China with censorship and identifying anonymous Chinese dissenters. [see November 6, 2007 transcript of Yahoo! Inc.’s Provision of False Information to Congress (pdf), Yahoo lied about its efforts assisting China.]

Recent condemnation of China by the United States House of Representatives for Internet censorship (H. RES. 1075) of Tibetans must add to that confusion?

Tomorrow Google, Cisco, and Yahoo will be appearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law on “Global Internet Freedom: Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law”. The hearing will focus, in large measure, on why these companies are assisting China with censorship. [see also AP, Cisco Systems document cites China censorship goal. Cisco's presentation lists as a China goal censoring Falun Gong and other hostiles—can't wait to hear who China thinks the other hostiles are.]

2. Americans (and others) must protect Google (and others) from retaliatory senators and representatives who are notorious for extorting our corporation by threatening regulation if they do not go along with Internet censorship.