It is not the first time that the Internet was gagged, and certainly not the last. Far too many governments, regimes, authorities, and others have at one time or the other soiled their hands while attempting to restrict the free-flow of information in the cyberspace.

It could be under the guise of religious tolerance, pornography, patriotism, or many such pretexts. Thus, if China blocked websites that talked about Taiwan or Tibet, or Pakistan blocked blogs displaying the controversial Danish cartoons, not many eyebrows were raised.

But when, the Indian government starting giving diktats to ISPs on which websites and blogs should be blocked, it came as a rude shock. After all, censorship and democracy hardly go together, and the world's largest democracy doing something like this was simply not acceptable. There was a huge uproar. And the battle against the ban was carried on multiple fronts.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) founded in 1990 is a group that fights against censorship defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights. With the aid of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF has achieved considerable success and clout in its battle for freedom.

Shashwat Chaturvedi from CyberMedia News interacted with the co-founder of EFF and board member, John Gilmore on the various issues that surround the debate of Internet and censorship. Gilmore describes himself as an entrepreneur and civil libertarian. He is a technology veteran and quite an authority on issues related to, well, technology and liberty as well. Excerpts:

Is it really possible to ban or block any content on the Internet?

If there are dedicated people who wish to publish the information, it is quite hard to ban or block information. This is true of any kind of information (as was seen in the erstwhile USSR where typewriters and copying machines were banned, yet hand-copied smuggled information was widely distributed). It is even harder on the Internet, because computers are very good at making copies, and because there are so many jurisdictions from which those copies can be legally published.

Often, the attempt to ban particular information produces publicity that causes tens of thousands of people to seek out and/or republish the very information that was being censored.

Do you think, as a trend, Internet censorship is increasing over the past few years?

People who wish to control what other people are allowed to read or think have not given up those wishes. I think that Internet censorship is increasing, but I think it is increasing less than the growth of the Internet. Thus, the Internet is pulling ahead of the censors despite their efforts.

What according to you are the ethical concerns involved? For instance, is it not "appropriate" to ban child pornography or content that might stoke religious fervour?

I do not think it is appropriate to ban any information from adults. The cure for bad information is more information. Teach people why they should not be religious fanatics; teach them why they should not molest children. Let us hear the stories and see the pictures of those people who are the victims of these excesses -- as well as the stories and pictures of the fanatics and molesters.

A computer or a network cannot make a moral choice; that choice is for humans, and is best done by educated and informed humans. Hiding these ugly sides of humanity will not help to cure them. As a US Supreme Court justice (judge) said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Proponents for censorship often debate that if given a free reign, the Internet might be totally taken over by subversive and pervert elements and some form of control is necessary, what are your views?

It is obvious that the vast majority of information on the Internet is innocent or informative. By definition, "subversive" information is a minority (if it was the majority belief, it would be the dominant way of thinking). Perversion is defined only in a context in which some other, much more popular, action or belief is "normal." A little thought will evaporate this myth about an explosion of perversion.

The reason that some kinds of information, such as sexual information, or factual information about illegal drugs, are more prevalent on the Internet than in other media, is because that information is banned from appearing in those other media, such as broadcast television, or censored newspapers. One of the interesting rules of new media is that every new medium starts with a burst of material that had no available outlet in the old media. For example, pre-recorded video cassettes' initial market in the US was for pornography, because porn could not be seen on broadcast TV or in most movie theatres. Only after that market was established, did the major movie vendors start selling ordinary movies on video cassettes. Similarly, "pirated" music became prevalent on the Internet long before major companies were willing to release music legally on the Internet.

While we all know that China and Saudi Arabia are in the forefront when it comes to banning Internet websites. Do you see progressive and democratic countries indulging in such practices?

Yes, the particular form of government does not seem to determine whether a country will attempt to control the minds of its citizens; they all do, to one extent or another. And many so-called democratic countries, my own especially, have seized on 9/11 as an excuse for authoritarian excesses.

Are not big Internet companies willing to partner with anti-democratic governments for the sake of commercial gains, for instance, Yahoo had helped in the prosecution of a blogger in China, and Google also agreed to filter its content. In such an atmosphere, can democracy really flourish on the Internet?

Even Google's founder, Sergey Brin, now thinks that Google may have made a mistake in agreeing to censor their results in China. Sometimes the answer is that some people and some countries will have to make mistakes in order for all of us to learn from those mistakes. I am heartened that people from all over India and all over the world have objected to the current round of Indian government censorship.

What do you think will be the scenario in the future? Will Internet have to submit to the diktats of the authorities like any other medium like television and print?

Every person is responsible to follow the laws of their own country; yet we can all work to change those laws. And when those laws are reprehensible, then passive or active opposition may be required. Mahatma Gandhi provided many useful lessons in how a populace can nonviolently free itself from oppressive rules and rulers. And many technologists have developed ways for citizens to evade information controls that they think are inappropriate.

How does EFF help in the fight against censorship?

EFF publicizes attempts at censorship, to help rally opposition to those attempts. It has litigated against several such national laws in the United States, succeeding each time in overturning the attempted censorship. It has also litigated against various attempts to hold people responsible for publishing information that others do not want to be published (such as DVD copy control information; information about unreleased Apple products; and more than a dozen cases in which employers try to identify an anonymous poster who criticizes the company so that they can fire that person if they are an employee). In general we have been successful in the courts on these topics.

We could not succeed in this work without the broad support of good people. Because the Internet community -- and the community of mankind in general -- is supportive of freedom of information and freedom of communication, we are not a lone voice when we oppose censorship. Instead, we are the thin point of a wedge -- a focus of a much broader social movement.

Are there plans to open an Indian chapter in the near future?

We do not have a plan to open an Indian chapter soon, unfortunately. However, in the last few years, we have become much more active internationally, with employees working in England, Canada, and Latin America. As we learn more about working throughout the world, I am sure that you will see us in India sometime or other. We hope that India does not need us any sooner than we can find the funding to arrive there!

© CyberMedia News