huridocs-tech Human Rights and Free Speech on the Internet (Afaiz Column)

Edited/Distributed by HURINet - The Human Rights Information Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Human Rights and Free Speech on the Internet"
by Ahmad Faiz bin Abdul Rahman            (1 August 1998)
----------------------------------------------

The Internet is one of the most significant tools for the
furtherance of human rights today. In places where
resistance is driven by certain elements within the middle
and upper classes such as Hong Kong, Indonesia and even
greater China electronic communications actually fuels
resistance.

And in the case of Mexico, communications via the Internet
had mobilised crucial international support needed during
the Chiapas revolt.

"With the world watching, it became difficult for the
Mexican government to crack down on rebels," said Patrick
Ball of the Science and Human Rights Program at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (See Arabianews
at http://www.arabia.com, June 16, 1998)

Indeed, the Internet remains as one of the most potent tools
against government censorship or clampdown on vocal
opponents or critics. A good example would be the Digital
Freedom Network (http://www.dfn.org), which has been on the
Internet since 1996.

The site dons the description of "an international
non-partisan partnership working with free speech and human
rights organisations."

Among the author=92s on DFN=92s Web site are "dissidents"
such as Bao Ge (China), Salima Ghezali (Algeria), Ra=92l
Rivero (Cuba), Pius Njawe (Cameroon) and Kiogi wa Wamwere
(Kenya).

One can also find works by Algerian cartoonist and columnist
Chawki Amari who was allegedly arrested at his home on July
4, 1996 for publishing a cartoon making fun of the Algerian
political classes.

Be that as it may, "the Internet is grossly overplayed as a
force for change in the Third World," says Ball. In certain
countries, the Internet, on its own, is still incapable of
organising grassroots resistance against repressive regimes,
other than rallying people of the middle and upper classes
to the popular cause, if at all.

In fact, in some instances, the elite and the grassroots are
so bifurcated that things which have been circulated over
the Internet cannot be easily considered as "public
knowledge".

In Turkey, for example, a teenager was convicted and
sentenced with a 10 month jail term after criticising the
police for using violence on a group of blind protestors,
but Ball points out that very few people have access to
online communications in that nation.

Hence the defense put forth by the teenager that he did not
publicly insult the state security forces because online
comments were not "public" was a valid one, albeit it was
finally rejected by the Turkish court.

For that matter, the Internet can be used to further remove
the elite from the grassroots people making them ever more
aloof to what is actually happening on the ground, so to
speak.

In such a situation, it is more likely that the elite would
place significance on matters which would only further their
own interests or that which mostly affects them instead of
the grassroots people.

Alternatively, many among the middle and upper classes would
mistakenly think that it is sufficient to further a human
rights cause by just indulging in electronic exchanges in
virtual discussion groups.

They would not hesitate to speak their minds in strong and
colourful language, posting their electronic mails using
services made available by free e-mail account providers,
such as Hotmail or Yahoo!Mail, in order to guarantee
anonymity but would not necessarily go to ground with the
rest of the grassroots people.

For, at the end of the day, there is still no substitute for
physical resistance through demonstrations or otherwise
which, in most instances, involves the threat of
incarceration, physical injury and even the loss of lives.
And the preparedness of those of the middle and upper
classes in that regard cannot be considered a foregone
conclusion.

There is also an aspect which may impinge upon the
overplaying of the significance of the Internet on human
rights activism in a most contradictory fashion.

In the contemporary human rights debate, nations of the
North tend to place great emphasis on civil and political
liberties whereas those of the South tend to emphasise upon
the right to social and economic development. It is as
though, at some point, these two aspects of human rights
were mutually exclusive

Whichever side one takes, one must acknowledge the fact that
the increase in a nation=92s wealth, in some instances, has
had a positive effect on human rights.

According to Joseph Nagy, former senior editor for Asiaweek,
in nations such as Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea
and Taiwan, "the middle class developed into a critical mass
where people had enough influence to demand justice and
accountability from their government. Once that turning
point was reached, there was no turning back."

After all, wealth meant greater access to and dissemination
of information that is almost impossible to censor through
satellite television or as found on the Internet.

This has led some to argue, in a most ironic fashion, that
not only is it unreasonable to expect a country like Myanmar
to change its system overnight, economic sanctions may
adversely affect human rights by preventing a groundswell
for democracy that would be brought about by socio-economic
development.

And, if anything, the bifurcation between the elite and the
grassroots people would only be strengthen or intensified.

This is because, in such a situation, due to its limited
accessibility, the Internet does little or nothing to
alleviate the powerlessness of the grassroots people against
the overbearing presence of the state as backed by the
political elite.

Thus it is arguable that the significance of the Internet
vis-=E0-vis human rights would be fully realised only if
some sort of Marshall Plan is formulated and put into effect
for solving many of the world=92s problems today.

The policy or plan formulated by General Marshall, the then
Secretary of State, was directed generally against hunger,
poverty, desperation and chaos, albeit it was primarily
meant to counter the Soviet threat.

Its purpose was the revival of a working economy in Western
Europe that would permit the emergence of political and
social conditions in which free institutions can exist or
attain significance.

And today, those "institutions" would also mean the
Internet.

-----------------------------
[Currently, he is the Assistant Director of the
International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He was also
a Researcher for the Institute of Islamic Understanding,
Malaysia (IKIM)]



----------------------------------
Send mail for the 'huridocs-tech' list to 'huridocs-tech@hrea.org'.
Mail administrative request to 'majordomo@hrea.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: 'owner-huridocs-tech@hrea.org'.
Archives of previous messages posted to the list can be found at:
http://www.human-rights.net/huridocs-tech.