Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia all are using their considerable web presence today to protest legislation pending in the U.S. Congress. According to the Google announcement:
Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.
It may appear to the casual reader that this is an effort by entertainment corporations (Hollywood) to impose their particular view of internet regulation on the rest of the country and encountering opposition from Silicon Valley. What’s not commonly understood (and why this is a subject for our discussion) is that provisions of these laws block foreign websites. In other words, the U.S. Congress has taken it upon itself to legislate for the world. This is why Wikipedia (a global encyclopedia) has blacked-out it’s English-language version that is available all over the world. While this is much more common than most would think (the U.S. Congress often sets standards that other countries and businesses must meet in order to do business in the U.S. – often their largest market – which makes the U.S. Congress a de facto global lawmaking body) it’s an excellent example of the global scope of American laws.
It’s particularly ironic that the U.S. Congress is seeking to curtail internet access while another branch of the U.S. government, the Executive Branch (namely the State Department) is seeking to undermine those countries that censor the internet. As this report notes:
The United States plans to pump millions of dollars into new technology to break through Internet censorship overseas amid a heightened crackdown on dissent in China, officials have said. State Department officials said they would give $19 million to efforts to evade Internet controls in China, Iran and other authoritarian states which block online access to politically sensitive material […] The funding comes out of $30 million which the US Congress allocated in the current fiscal year for Internet freedom.
The New York Times clarifies some of the specific strategies and tactics the U.S. will use as this policy is implemented:
The State Department plans to finance programs like circumvention services, which enable users to evade Internet firewalls, and training for human rights workers on how to secure their e-mail from surveillance or wipe incriminating data from cellphones if they are detained by the police […] Administration officials say that the emphasis on a broad array of projects — hotly disputed by some technology experts and human rights activists — reflects their view that technology can be a force that leads to democratic change, but is not a “magic bullet” that brings down repressive regimes.
A commendable policy, to be sure, but what happens if the repressive regime is the U.S.?
We are witnessing a very odd development in which other countries seek to block access to politically sensitive material while the U.S. seeks to block access to commercially sensitive material. Some would say it amounts to the same thing: state-sponsored censorship.
It is now a stock phrase among presidents and presidential candidates that they want to champion U.S. values abroad. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to do that. Does the U.S. stand for freedom of expression or censorship? The upcoming votes on SOPA and PIPA may well provide the answer.
Image Credit: CNN/AFP/Getty Images
