Social media ban; democracy, or hypocrisy?
13th August, 2011 by Lara Cronshaw

London Riots - Trigger for new controls over social media ?

In lieu of the bitter chaos that spread across England this week,
Parliaments emergency sitting, yesterday outlined a sharp turn-around
in government thinking towards a number of social issues, including the
forced removal of face masks, court sentencing powers and potential
restrictions on the use of social networking media.

Earlier this year however, restrictions we may now see, were used in
real-time, during the political uprising in Egypt that overthrew
President Hosni Mubarak, ?wiping the country off the digital map.?

The view taken on these actions by the western world was clear and
decisive, deemed undemocratic and an infringement on human rights,
services were immediately launched to manoeuvre new ways of accessing
the restricted networks, including Google?s Speak to Tweet. ?United
Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, accused the Egyptian government
of treading on the democratic principles of freedom of speech and
freedom of association when it cut internet access ahead of planned
protests.?

Thus the question then remains, why is there such disparity between
the messages given by our own leader, Mr. Cameron, who previously
condemned the actions of the Egyptian government, and yet has now
revealed potential plans to introduce such curtailment tactics himself?
Cameron told Parliament the government is investigating whether it
would indeed be ?right and possible? to ban people from using social
media? and when people are using social media for violence we need to
stop them.? Unsurprisingly, immediate criticism was voiced towards the
announcement from civil libertarians, who compared it to attempts by
authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent.?

It seems the West, and in this particular circumstance, Britain is
guilty of parading double standards on where it morally and ethically
stands, as well as on its own views on the definition of democracy. The
differentiation in circumstance is clear, nonetheless the arguments for
and against the ban are the same in essence; to take away a right
through moderation or to allow the free flow of, ?ill? information and
incitement through lack of control? which is the lesser of two evils?

Realistically, to impose such limitations and to make judgments on
what is deemed to be potential criminal incitement, would be incredibly
difficult given the scope of abilities such devices have.

The bottom line on this is far from clear cut, ?Citizens have the
right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech
relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to
attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of
a small minority.? However, fundamentally if such restrictions could
truly enable a safer society, must we not explore such potential; in
doing so are we then bowing to the un-democratic tendencies we have
ourselves have regularly condemned?

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤