Social order, corporate dominance vs free speech and the taming of the internet. How important is this?
Can and should governments be able to shut down social media and disable citizens access to the internet during times of social unrest? And if they can do that, what else can they do? Have a read of this:
One of the anti-riot measures recently suggested by British PM David Cameron is to prevent rioters from using Twitter and other social networking websites. Such a tactic, which was slammed as a trick resorted to only by authoritarian governments in the past, has had a great impact on world media.
The bold measure indicates that Britain is at its wit’s end on how to stop the country’s worst riots in decades.
Cameron’s suggestion to block social networking websites smashes basic concepts of freedom of speech in the West, which always takes the moral high ground in criticizing the reluctant development of Internet freedom in developing countries.
The violence has brought a comprehensive and diverse influence on the whole of the West. Created by globalization and the development of the Internet, the headache of governance suffered by developing countries has now spread to their developed peers.
Democracy and freedom of speech should have their pragmatic connotations and denotations. The Chinese edition website of the Financial Times carried an article on Friday titled “What is the bottom line of freedom of speech?” Fanned by the rapid development of the Internet, the requirement for freedom of speech is trespassing the boundaries of the current political system in the West, it warned.
I wrote a post in January about this after the riots in Egypt when the government attempted to shut down the internet. Back then it seemed unthinkable that a western democracy would contemplate such a thing. But in the UK that’s what’s now being discussed.
There is a much wider context to this debate. It’s called net neutrality. And yes, it’s about power and vested interests. So watch out.
Net neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.
I believe any government should be very very careful before it rushes out in the heat of the moment promising to shut down communication channel in order to preserve social order. Doing that affects all of us. And some fundamental principles upon which our society and our political system is built.
It’s creepy!
The others didn’t riot! 
! Don’t blame the social networks! 
!!!!!
Clare, you were wishing just last week to try and shut down the social unrest (Trolls) in Red Alert, pretty rich of you is it not?
I think the time has come for governments needing to “be cruel to be kind”
Dude!
Are you really comparing moderation to creepy state interference in the internet? 
Shut down the widespread control of media by corporate transnational interests first.
The net and social media offer a chance to spread a variety of opinion and information from many sources.
Sadly the press is already heavily censored and the public mindwashed.
Exposing truth may be the best medicine to prevent the corruption and manipulation that ends up with widespread social unrest.
Yes it would be a shame to lose this wild west but unfortunately it’s already happened.
Just like big pharma would just love if the homeopathy remedies market weren’t there, so too big money got together and determined it would be a good idea if we stopped all this piracy.
Curiously enough, the detection mechanisms are unknown and the penalties draconian. Isn’t that peculiar.
Personally I’ve only been a file sharer for a brief period about five-six years ago so I don’t care if I can’t get movies but it’s a shame it’s extended to things like free episodes of Yes Minister on YouTube. I mean, what’s the point of asserting copyright over that?
And that’s what it means really, a poorer, smaller frontier for all of us. Bought about once again, like the file-sharers, by completely selfish actions by a tiny group of disaffected and/or uncaring individuals. Honestly. It’s a shame we humans have this element of repeated patterns isn’t it. You’d think by now someone would have done something about it. But no.
Net neutrality is just a slogan.
The context tends to be around protocols, technology and methods of access to content, not the content itself per se (i.e material censorship).
I don’t think what Cameron is talking about impacts any of the above at all.
I think he is talking Lawful Interception (LI) and censorship. A different set of issues entirely.
BTW, the last time I checked the fundamental principles our society and political systems are built was defence of property rights. Then again, things may have changed when I wasn’t looking.
Spud @ 3:50pm.
Well said!
Gregor W
Try the Magana Carter
Which Lord Denning described as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
NZ Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act_1990
“Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.”
Some discrimination is a good thing. If a Skype call and someone downloading gigabytes of content using BitTorrent are in contention for bandwidth then Skype should be prioritised.
@Clare Curren,
Does spud fit your deffinition of troll?
If not, why not?
OL Like anyone else who has breached the moderating rules Spud has been through periods of moderation and has been banned.
If you don’t like our rules, go somewhere else to comment. We are not preventing you having your say in general. Start your own blog.
We welcome comments but not ones that destroy the environment for others, tell lies, personally attack or are offensive.
Simple really.
Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to stop peoples access to the internet or to social networking mediums. They are for many a vital means of those peoples abilities to express themselves. In absence of confidentiality contracts or a conviction for a relevant offence they should not be allowed to prevent peoples access. Net neutrality is key.
What many people in NZ and other western countries seem to forget is that freedom of speech is a privilege we enjoy because of where we live. But this freedom comes with responsibilities to our communities, and there are constraints around what we are able to say legally, after all an individual is not able to incite violence or conspire to commit a crime, so it makes sense that the vehicles used by criminals to facilitate these activities are targetted.
My question to those who criticise this plan is this: How do you propose that the authorities counter the widespread use of social media to incite violence, rioting and looting by a mob? Or do you think it is okay for the internet, or any other public forum, to be used for this purpose?
The question on the issue of net neutrality should do we actually have a real problem with data discrimination by private companies now? Now, compare that to what governments do, not just this knee jerk reaction from David Cameron, but real issues like filtering and censorship in Australia and the already mentioned attempted shutdowns of the internet by governments. The real threat to internet freedom lies with the state not with internet providers. They hypocrisy of Obama simultaneously pursuing “net neutrality” and an internet kill-switch should give pause for thought.
Here’s the same case made: Net Neutrality: What’s fair? What pays? It provides an illustrative example of why we should resist the government having more power over the internet, which includes that under the guise of “net neutrality”. The US government shut down 84,000 websites accidentally Now, do we really want them to have more power over the internet?
The internet really should be free and open. We should resist any attempts to regulate or censor it and we should be especially weary of politicians who seek power over the lives’ of others and claim to want to preserve the freedom of the internet while presenting their newest scheme to regulate it.
As an Englishman, the discussions in the UK about blocking social media is quite frankly revolting, however, the implementation of such a scheme is simply an extension of Labour’s pillage of civi liberties and free speech under Blair and Brown.
Interesting you mention the Magna Carta Clare, your kin in the UK did their utmost to revolt against that very document.
To be honest, I can’t see it happening. It’s too knee jerk.
The spoken word is carried by vibrations in the air. Would you propose the UK Government bans air, as it can be mis-used to carry hate speech and convey incitements to violence? The same goes for pens, pencils, paper, telephones, newspapers, billboards, notice boards, flyers, posters and [electronic] social media networks.
The originator of the message is the source, not the medium. The outcry is because the notion of controlling this (or any other) medium is an absurd abuse of freedom.
The UK government (and like minded right wing parties) need to look in the mirror at the causes. Impoverished, downtroden, disempowered, disconnected people in affluent societies won’t keep on asking politely for help. Eventually they’ll riot in the streets to make their point, express their frustration, and to grab a share of the wealth that the rest of society continually flashes in their faces, but denies them access to.
The rich and comfortable do not benefit from ever increasing wealth. Eventually they have to answer to all the people who missed out on the resources they have accumulated, by whatever means.
With policies leading to greater inequity in wealth (more for the few, less for the many), the same riot & loot will eventually happen here in NZ. It’s inevitable. So don’t vote for more of the same this November. You’ve just seen in the UK what you’ll get. It could be your fancy car getting smashed up, and your greedy insurance company claiming an exclusion for civil disobedience.
Do something about it. Communicate the chain of thought to all those you speak to who don’t make the connection between greed policies and riot results.
@ Clare
Not that I like quoting from Wiki but using your own link:
…for example by explicitly accepting that no “freeman” (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.
A freeman was (generally) a property holder. No property, not classed as free.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges.
Privileges of feudal levy (i.e. tax collection) over their serfs, bondsmen, freemen and renters without the King interfering.
The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61 (the original document was not actually divided into clauses). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary.
So like I say, it all starts with property.
I must say I laughed to hear the UK PM bemoaning lack of morality amongst rioters and knowing right from wrong… hacking scandal anyone? hiring a person knee deep in hacking scandal…schmoozing with media, expenses scandal…financial collapse…
Morality indeed knows no social class, yet he seems oblivious
I believe in free speech however I also believe it comes with responsibility. If you want to use your free speech to mislead the police during looting and a riot, or to strategise for a crime then that ought to be a criminal act, however criminals used telephones and before that letters for doing exactly the same thing, and we didnt ban the telephone or letters, we enforced the laws with that specificity in mind.
Property rights, ah to have property to which a right may be applied. many Maori used to have property… then it was taken (sometimes legitimately with an exchange of bargain, often not) now Mr Brash is speaking of the need to ensure that much of that very property is now protected to ensure absolute right to do as one pleases… oh the irony of the short memory
Tracy – Did you also catch some of the words David Cameron uses.
eg we’re going to “crack down”, “empower our police” “respond with force” “wont let phoney human rights concerns interfere” “restore order” “take back our cities” “nothing but criminals”. I got to wondering if he actually was listening to Gadaffi?
One dictator one democracy – same words.
Just saying!
Disclaimer – Not comparing the situations, just the response and the words from authority.
Yes, Jeremy, I noticed it and so did the Head of Syria. It’s a grey scale not black and white so in my mind the rhetoric can be on the same scale but not at the same place.
I first really noticed the “meme” “hot button” thing after 9/11 when “make no mistake” made its public/media debut, it spread like wildfire… many in between with the most recent being “aspirational”, and it really does spread like wildfire BUT advertising and marketing doesnt impact how people think
Magana Carter = LOL. One of Chris’ relations?
I just can’t take the rest of it seriously after that.
Enjoyed your posts Jeremy & Tracey. Looks like they’re simply following the example from the last mob.
Britain under Labour: The Convention on Modern Liberty’s take:
“Laws stopping people taking pictures of the police have little to do with tackling crime” – Moazzem Begg, Former Guantanamo Bay detainee
“We are now the most spied-upon country in the developed world” – Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats
“We have lived under one of the most authoritarian ages in living memory” – Shami Chakrabarti, Head of Liberty
“This attack on our freedoms under this government threatens us all” – Dominic Grieve, Shadow Justice Secretary
60 New powers in 25 Acts have undermined civil liberties under Labour.