Freedom of speech = Freedom of the Internet?

[Pygmy-Na'vi]

Freedom of speech is part of the Declaration of Human Rights, as written in article 19 - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Connected to this article are parts of the articles 11 (Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence), 12 (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence) 21 (The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government) and 26 (Everyone has the right to education).

What I wonder is; does any of this apply to the Internet? There has been many laws passed, law suggestions placed and other infringements already implemented or on the way in a near future which will limit access to the Internet for many people. And not only in China, Iran and similar countries, the western world will run past them if everything I've heard and read of goes through. Here are some examples from different countries:

FRA law - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_law)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)
HADOPI law - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadopi)
Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPRED)
Spanish presidency declares war on reality « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP (http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/spanish-presidency-declares-war-on-reality/)
Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse. - Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html)
Internet filter 'poses threat to freedom' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/26/2801759.htm)

Personally I don't like this one bit. Am I just paranoid, or does this happen all over the world? What worries me is that the promoters of these laws use ou fears against us - terrorism, counterfeiting, scary things and minor groups, easy to use as battering-rams to implement restricting laws "for our own good". But what happens the day a less-than-benevolent party reaches to power? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Colonel Quaritch]

And a whole load of people spread out through all the countries to create a widespread minority of those who can see these problems yet don't have the strength in numbers to even make the slightest bit of difference *sigh* :(

[joeylovesgaia]

Save the Internet | Join the fight for Internet Freedom (http://www.savetheinternet.com/)

[Shatnerpossum]

Frankly I don't mind at all. Almost everything on the list is either a measure to combat illegal activity, or is opinion/alarmism.

[Neytiri]

I do believe that the loss of net neutrality will restrict our freedom of speech... however, I believe deep down in my heart that the human species is very freedom loving... and we will always find a way to connect for good causes. Loss of net neutrality will only further stir the hearts of those that love freedom. I know that loss of net neutrality is probably coming soon, but fear not... where there is a will, there is a way to preserve freedom.

[Pygmy-Na'vi]

Shatner: The "illegal activity" that those laws are supposed to combat are minor in comparison to the violation of privacy and legal security. In practice, a "print screen" copy (which can be faked) and an accusation (not a court ruling, only an accusation) is enough to give you a $26000 demand note in Sweden, Finland and other countries today (thanks to IPRED) and is enough to have your Internet access cut for a year without any legal protection in France. What happened to that mother of four in USA who got a huge fine because someone had used her internet connection to download four movies?

And the "war against terrorism" which the FRA activity (among others) is supposed to combat - that surveillance system is based on keyword search. How many terrorists would openly write "hey, lets blow up Parliament on Tuesday" in an email? The encryption and darknets needed to go around the FRA surveillance are already in place for those who know how to use it, it's the ordinary people who gets caught and in trouble.

My fear is that the small steps are taken under cover of "the war against terrorism/paedophilia/file sharing/abscense of morality", since no one likes these things and the few who stand up against the laws (not the phenomena in themselves) are accused of being what the laws are officially made to counter, they're all passed. For your own good, for the security of our people. But that security is paid by removing freedom, until we have our own Eywa who keeps everything in check according to the rule of "my freedom - your security".

[Shatnerpossum]

But the question is, do you have a reasonable expectation to privacy online? The answer is a resounding "no." Therefore monitoring is not intrusive. Hell, the government isn't even going as far as ad companies or social networking sites.

And please tell me you realize that cherry-picking scary stories is anecdotal and not suitable to present as evidence?

Why would ordinary people write "let's blow up parliament"?

Frankly you have no privacy online away. Stalkers, hackers, ad companies, businesses; they all know about you. The ONLY thing this does is adds government to the list, which has considerably more of a reason than the others. So since you never had privacy before, it obviously isn't a right online. And since it wasn't a right, and nothing has changed except enforcement of existing laws, there is no net effect on freedom.

Does that stance make any sense to you? I really hope my point at least sounds sensible.

[vvx]

There already are restrictions on the freedom of speech. For example, yelling fire in a movie theater (classic example). Unconditional freedom is a tough thing. If you have the freedom to do everything, does that include the freedom to punch strangers in the face? As some would say, your freedom to swing that fist ends where my face begins.

So some filtering, for example filtering discussions for how to assassinate children, could be filtered to preserve the freedom of others. (Obviously anyone with power will abuse that power at some point, but there isn't necessarily any more restriction needed in this area than in the real world.)

Other filtering includes things like ********. This one is tricky - a few users that use lots of bandwidth can ruin the internet for others. My own opinion here is it's the ISP's own fault. If they're going to advertise unlimited internet at 10 mbps or whatever,... they need to have the bandwidth capacity to do it. Don't sell what you can't deliver.

A variation on that is the filtering of specific types of content in order to protect one's monopoly. Comcast filtering Netflix instant streaming for example screams "Antitrust!" which really has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Now, should the ISPs be allowed to sell restricted internet? Aside from antitrust issues, I think yes. With a limited maximum bandwidth they need some way to allocate it, so they SHOULD put limitations in place. At the same time they need to be up front about those limitations. Do not tell me I have unlimited 10mbps internet and then throttle 90% of my downloads to dialup speeds. That is not cool. If you tell me I'm buying dialup internet speeds for 90% of my internet then sure, do it, (but I won't buy your internet anyway).

One big reason the "real" unlimited internet companies fail is because the ones that filter and restrict flat-out lie. The consumer does not know what they're buying and cannot make an educated choice. That should be regulated, advertising truth and all that.