The State of Western Censorship of the Internet

An extremely helpful article appeared on the front page of Monday's national edition of The New York Times, Adam Satariano's "Europe Is Reining In Tech Giants. But Some Say It’s Going Too Far." The main focus is European efforts to censor the internet, but Satariano takes in the entire globe, noting that

The debate in Europe illustrates the difficulties that governments face as they try to regulate the most corrosive material on the internet without choking off individual expression. That is set to flare up elsewhere as other countries also move to pass new laws or impose restrictions on online material.

In Sri Lanka, authorities shut off access to social media sites after coordinated terrorist attacks last month left hundreds dead. New Zealand and Australia have put forward restrictions on tech companies after the March massacre of 50 people at two mosques in New Zealand, where the accused gunman used social media to amplify his message. Singapore has also proposed a law to curtail false or misleading information, which critics warned could be used to silence dissent. And India is considering giving itself new powers to suppress digital content.

Tech companies themselves are asking for more regulation, rather than delegating enforcement responsibility to their platforms. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive officer, invited Congress in March to set rules for the social network, adding it “would be useful to spell out clearly what the responsibilities that we want companies and people and governments to have.” On Thursday, Facebook added to the censorship debate when it proactively barred several extremists, including the Infowars founder Alex Jones, from its platform.

Germany and Spain have tough internet censorship laws. In Germany it is based on the regulation of hate speech; in Spain, terrorism. Also

The move to regulate internet platforms in Europe has been gathering momentum. Last month, the European Parliament passed a law requiring companies to remove terrorist-related content within one hour or risk fines of up to 4 percent of global revenue. The measure must go through several more legislative steps before being enacted.

Critics said the proposed law doesn’t clearly define what constitutes objectionable content and delegates too much responsibility to tech companies. In December, United Nations representatives warned the proposed rule “may lead to infringements to the right to access to information, freedom of opinion, expression, and association, and impact interlinked political and public interest processes.”

And in Britain, the government last month proposed sweeping new powers to remove “harmful” content from the internet, including material supporting terrorism, inciting violence, encouraging suicide, disinformation, cyberbullying and inappropriate material accessible to children.

Human rights groups warn the public backlash against tech companies is being used as a pretext to censor speech. At least 17 countries including Malaysia, Egypt and Kenya have cited the spread of “fake news” when adopting or proposing new internet restrictions, according to Freedom House, a pro-democracy group tracking government internet policies.

Julie Owono, executive director of Internet Without Borders, a group tracking internet freedom globally, said Europe’s activities normalize the removal of content.

“Freedom of expression,” she said, “relies solely on the possibility your content won’t be suppressed arbitrarily.”

Satariano, in a mild statement, introduces the notion that the West is forfeiting its soft-power advantage as an open society:

With the growing body of European legislation, “there will be a lower standard for protection of freedom of expression,” said David Kaye, a University of California, Irvine, law professor whom the United Nations appointed to spotlight government efforts to restrict free speech. He added that Europe’s rules erode what had been a shared belief among the United States and other Western democracies to avoid censoring social media posts, YouTube videos, discussion forums and other internet content.

I suppose Western leaders will continue to insist that their society is more open than China's. But it might be better to say "less closed" than "more open."