By Will Sturgeon, 12 May 2004 18:00
COMMENT The internet has always provided a platform for airing extreme views both for and against everything from art and celebrity to race and religion.
While this may always have been the case internet filtering firm SurfControl has recognised a growth in the number of hate sites aimed at specific races, religions and minorities within society.
Those who promote homophobia, racism and religious persecution have all found their way online and are finding it the ideal way to voice their opinions from the comparative safety of their homes - with the added benefit of a global audience.
The lack of regulation on the internet is seen by most as a good thing and freedom of speech is held up as a basic human right in most developed countries.
And long may that continue to be the case.
There are of course lines which cannot - or should not be crossed. Sites which promote illegal activities or contain illegal, or illegally acquired or created content should be taken down - but establishing that to be the case is not straightforward.
While I'm loathe to address specific topics, we could of course go through a checklist of issues. Take child pornography as an example. Of course any site promoting or propagating explicitly illegal sexual content involving children should be taken down. But few issues are that clear cut.
In France for example reference to the Nazi occupation and the Holocaust are illegal. As such in 2000 the French government and Yahoo! came to legal blows over an online auction of World War II memorabilia.
Even though Yahoo! hosted the auction out of the US where the First Amendment is held dear, the French government wanted the content blocked - as it does all reference to the subject. But is this really ever a road we want to go down?
Just because something is controversial, provocative or even upsetting to many the precedent we could be setting with sweeping rulings on what is permissible and what isn't is potentially of far greater concern. Especially if measures are taken to ensure all content conforms with all international laws.
Even though some matters of this ilk - such as the recent case of the anti-Semitic Jew Watch website - may appear more clear cut than others, once you start setting precedents you're then faced with the question of where do you stop?
There was outcry when Google's site was blocked in China for failing to filter search results for outlawed spiritual movement Falun Gong. Civil rights campaigners drew up petitions to get the block lifted. More recently there was outcry again when Google's site failed to block the Jew Watch site. Campaigners drew up a petition to get a block put in place. So the precedent being demanded is unclear.
The power of Google means it will never be all things to all people. We're also kidding ourselves if we think searches for 'Christian', 'Jew', 'Muslim', 'Hindu', 'gay', 'homosexual', 'black', 'Asian', 'Protestant', 'Catholic' or whatever will return only positive search results.
The price we pay for freedom of speech is that the voices of the extreme, the unpopular and the unwelcome will occasionally be heard.
Search engines are a barometer of the times we live in - and at times that fact must be understood as being sad but true. The internet represents the global society. It shows us what is out there and what others have to say about all issues. If the fact that opposition, oppression or -isms of any kind exist is something which comes as an unwelcome surprise then perhaps some people aren't ready for the internet.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ryan Sodziak
I dont think the world can cope with a global device such as the internet.
If each country had its own internet and only that country can access it, then things might be fine. But because we allow information to flow so freely across the borders there is always going to be problems.
The world will never agree as a whole on what we can and cannot see/read or hear. We are too much different.
2. Stuart Vine
A lot of people really aren't ready for the internet, many because some of the information contained there may undermine their political or religious dominance. Countries like China and Iran want the benefits but are afraid of the political consequences of free communication.
3. anonymous
Ironically I think it's important to allow sites such as Jew Watch to continue to be available to everyone. If you ban bigots like this they will take on an air of legitimacy - immerse themselves more fully in their paranoia (it was the Zionist conspiracy that got us blackballed). I'd rather my bigots were out in the open where they could be observed and their arguments countered rather than driven underground where their bile can fester.