Sanitizing the Internet

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views September 10, 2001]

Otto Schily, Germany's interior minister, has been putting off a trip to the United States. The date gets set and then it gets postponed. He seems to be waiting for the proper moment to lobby Congress, and whomsoever else he can buttonhole, to shut down websites owned and operated by Americans in America.

Meanwhile, in France, hearings have been launched to determine whether Internet service providers (ISPs) should be forced to take steps to stop French citizens from viewing particular websites. Last year a French judge ruled that the American company Yahoo must block French citizens' access to an auction site based in the United States. This same judge will rule on the case of the ISPs.

In both France and Germany, the websites in question are described as "neo-Nazi," although it turns out that often this designation is assigned to websites whose owners neither espouse nor promote Nazi political views. Unfortunately, in the battle of ideas, recklessly throwing the "racist" or "anti-Semite" charge at an opponent has become commonplace.

Internet users who are in the struggle to keep the Internet open and free for all opinions and dissent are concerned about the precedents now being set in places like Germany and France. Germany is the place where citizens, and even foreign visitors, have been arrested and jailed for producing and distributing literature that supposedly "offends the memory of the dead."

There are individuals and lobby groups in the U.S. and in Germany that regularly pressure Internet providers to close websites, online clubs and chat rooms. Supporting the positions taken in France and Germany are the Southern Poverty Law Center, the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In a Wired news interview, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, declared, "We commend the German authorities for sticking to their commitment."

A leading computer technology figure in Germany, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, is challenging the German government's attempts to ban websites. He says, ". . . at the end of the day, they will have to accept that the United States has something called freedom of speech in their Constitution." In a further interview, Mueller-Maguhn claimed, "Germany is trying to rule the world again by saying that the people who access the Internet have no choice."

Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute claims that efforts by German and French judges to sanitize the Internet "can never work," because a kind of international police force would be necessary to patrol the web. In an article, "Web Restrictions Unlikely to Muzzle Neo-Nazi Speech," Thierer says, "Even if such a global government solution were possible, holding the messenger liable is rarely an effective way of halting the flow of objectionable material."

Thierer suggests that "America could become the guardian of free speech worldwide by offering the protection of the First Amendment over the Net to millions of people who have been denied the right to speak freely in their own countries."

Meanwhile, here in the U.S., Yahoo is challenging last year's ruling in France against the auction site that was forced to close. A Reuters report claims that this case "effectively sets the stage for a legal showdown over whether foreign courts can be used to influence U.S. publishers and U.S. law."

-- EW

To follow the progress of the above mentioned cases and more to come, visit the following sites:

Wired.com

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Global Internet Liberty Campaign

Free Expression Clearinghouse

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views