Freedom of Speech in the Tech Sector: Not
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “One of the greatest aspects of living in a democracy is that all individuals have the right to freedom of speech – or at least that’s the illusion governments have granted us,” says Andy Boyd, who lives in the UK where he works as a writer for various blogs and websites.
“Unfortunately this right is the reserve of only a few and if you wish to voice opinion against authorities or corporations, be warned that they may use their powerful fists to stamp out any dissidence,” he says, going on »»»
Over the years a number of lawsuits have been waged against bloggers and companies where they voiced opinions not in line with technology companies, or even government ideology. Here are eleven examples, some more well known than others.
After a 3 year court battle, Think Secret, an Apple rumour site, was forced to cease to publish. Their crime – to reveal details of an unreleased Apple product called Asteroid. Apple set out to shut down the blog site citing that it was ‘posting Apple trade secrets’.
They claimed that not only was the site receiving insider knowledge of product developments but also that they were encouraging people to breach their confidentially agreements. That the site had insider knowledge was probably true as they had revealed several in-development products prior to Apple’s official launch, however, was it right to have the site shut down completely? After all, these rumour mills stimulate interest in Apple’s products and surely the free marketing couldn’t hurt their profit margins.
2. Apple versus iPhone developers
Apple’s dictatorial and protectionist approach was extended to iPhone application developers last year when it tightened the non-disclosure agreement. Application developers for the iPhone were not able to discuss programming tips in development communities, nor were they even able to publish the rejection letters.
Fortunately Apple finally came to their senses when they announced that they were going to drop the NDA after many complaints from the development community . However they are still only permitted to discuss released applications and not those in development.
3. Wikileaks.org ordered to shut down
According to The New York Times, Wikileaks.org was ordered to shut down by a federal judge in San Francisco after a lawsuit was brought against the site by a Cayman Island’s bank after they claimed that the site had unlawfully published confidential information.
Wikileaks.org had indeed published documentation on the site revealing certain unsavoury and unlawful practises taking place within the bank, and the judge found in favour of the bank, ordering the site to shut down and to stop distributing the documents. This gagging order is clearly breaching Freedom of Speech rights. Had the site been found to be publishing inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims then the order would be justified, however this is not the case. All this lawsuit has proven is that freedom of speech does not exist and that justice is truly blind.
4. Filtering online speech in China
China has never been fond of individuals expressing their opinion, especially when it could negatively impact the Chinese government’s public image. In 2006, their paranoia was fully exposed when Skype was told that it needed to have a filtering service in place to prevent messages, deemed offensive to the government, being sent.
The Chinese government are still living in the dark ages as far as freedom of speech is concerned. All internet traffic has to pass through government-controlled gateways and any offensive communication is destroyed. They may be a fast developing economy, but with their archaic views on communication they may end up falling on their own sword. After all how can free enterprise be fully achieved within such narrow boundaries?
5. HP’s smear campaign on recycled ink cartridges
You have to hand it to the big printer manufacturers: they don’t like their profits being hit. HP recently published a study on their website highly critising recycled and compatible cartridge suppliers, which unsurprisingly found how unreliable and uneconomical recycled cartridges were compared to than their own HP print cartridges. As the saying goes, one should be careful of using statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination. The study was commissioned by HP, who also developed the test methodology using only 2 models of printer and only on ‘refilling stations’.
What starts out as a compelling argument to buy original ink, soon becomes a much cloudier affair upon closer inspection.
There has been an ongoing battle in recent years to save the principle of Network Neutrality. Large phone and cable companies, like AT&T and Comcast are trying to eliminate First Amendment rights on the internet by gaining control over internet usage and acting as Internet Gatekeepers. They want to be able to dictate how people can use their search engines, internet phone services and streaming video.
Their objective is self evident: to eliminate the competition and ensure that internet users only see content pre-approved by these conglomerates. This is a big risk to freedom of speech and serves only to protect the interests of these companies. Imagine a world where you are told what you can read, say or think: this is what may happen if these companies get their way.
7. Blogger’s rights restored in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Alan Murray, a blogger whose controversial website criticized authorities in their apparent lack of ability to control the violence perpetrated by drunken students, landed in hot water after he was charged with intimidation in cyberspace.
Fortunately the judge ruled against the complainant, an all out victory for freedom of speech on the internet. Had it gone the other way, many more bloggers who voice their opinions against authorities and large organisations may have ended up being censored.
8. Google India versus Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects
Google India is on the receiving end of a lawsuit for hosting a series of articles on its blogging site slating Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects mining projects in Mozambique.
Ruling that the site was defamatory, Bombay High Court ordered the site to be taken down and that the identity of the blogger be revealed. Google India hasn’t yet released the identity of the blogger and if it doesn’t get the ruling overturned then the case could set a negative precedent for the future of India’s blogging community.
9. Google shuts down anti-Obama sites
Amazingly Google seems to only practise freedom of speech when it suits them. Last year a number of websites opposing Obama’s nomination for presidency were frozen for five days. Google claims that it was an automated response from a spam filter which locked on to their sites due to the mass spam emails which mentioned the ‘Just Say No Deal’ network of blogs.
These bloggers feel that they were targeted by pro-Obama campaigners and are not satisfied with Google’s management of the situation. Many feel that Google’s censorship was unjust and have since moved their blogs to other websites.
A rather innocent feature is the ability to vote to remove irrelevant information from digg. If a story receives enough buries, it will automatically be removed from the dig Upcoming or Popular sections. However, this feature is being exploited by people wanting to suppress articles not in line with their ideology. Many negative stories about McCain were buried during the election campaign.
It could be argued that this feature, while a great way to suppress spam, is a blatant restriction on the freedom of speech. Not only can it be used to prevent negative publicity for people and products, but it can be used by rivals to prevent positive affirmations being published.
11. UK man sues over negative eBay feedback
The Telegraph reported that a UK-based man filed a libel suit against a buyer on eBay, after he posted negative feedback on an item he purchased. The man claims that these comments have damaged his business and that his business could go under do to the negative feedback. (See here for the full article.)
The problem is that if the case goes to court and the seller wins, then where does it leave freedom of speech on the internet? It certainly seems ridiculous that only positive comments can be left on commercial websites and blogs.
Freedom of Speech in cyberspace will remain a contentious issue for many years to come. Corporations, authorities and high profile people do not like to be publically criticized and bloggers are easy targets for lawsuits. The good news is that inroads are being made into preserving users’ rights, with several lawsuits being overturned and more recently Microsoft, Google and Yahoo recently launched an initiative to protect the rights of people to express themselves freely.
Good one, Andy, thanks. Hopefully, we’ll be reading more from you. 
February , 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I wish this article wasn’t so poorly researched and carelessly assembled. The ‘Think secret’ case is about somebody spreading trade secrets and betraying confidentiality. Case no 2 is resolved and involved Non-disclosure agreements, not sure whether the authors case is with NDA’s in general?
In case 7 the judge ruled in the defendants favour and in case 11 no decision on the so called ‘libel’ has been reached, the truth is that very few cases of libel succeed, and the author himself states that ‘inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims’ are a valid reason for a complaint.
The Google blog case is alleged and the bloggers have moved to another provider and are, I assume, still practicing their freedom of speech, case no 6 is a perfect example of a strawman argument, the HP story hasn’t even got anything to do with restrictions of freedom of speech.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@Ken:
I wouldn’t be too quick to pronounce any of this post as “poorly researched”.
And, all links were provided for your further reading pleasure.
1) Think Secret
Completely glazed over with the “trade secret” BS.
Journalists are protected from liability in publishing that which is obtained lawfully, which was apparently the case.
And, Apple did benefit from the publicity. No damage claims should have been heard.
2) Apple iPhone Applications NDA
All to do with stifling competition by first stifling their ability to discuss such developments.
7) Belfast Bloggers
Yes, it was a victory for freedom of online expression.
It was also an illustration that authority does not always respect it, and is perfectly willing to try to take you down for it.
11) e-Bay “Defamation”
Another illustration of the dangers of scumbags being able to sue those who use the feedback forums for what they’ve been provided for – FEEDBACK! Online sellers should need to maintain a reputation of trust. False advertising is not the way to do this.
9) Google Blogs
The bloggers in question had every indication they were being silenced, and Google didn’t address it properly. Whether guilty or not in this regard, Google didn’t demonstrate any vested interest in free speech, but rather, offered some feeble, and blatantly improbable explanation.
6) HP Inks
While I do agree this case doesn’t touch on free speech directly, it may still belong on the list.
HP was spreading complete misinformation designed to discredit competitors’ claims made (using their right to free speech). This is a definite demonstration of ABUSE of free speech. Inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims should not come from those that are in a position of “authority” in any realm (HP is a source company), and should not have any protection when rightfully challenged.
(Thanks for playin’, though!)
: )
February 16th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
On case 5, sue for libel…really not a “Freedom of Speech” issue, but more a conspiracy issue backed by biased testing, which is done quite often. Case 10 is not a Freedom of Speech issue either. I would put it more as a case of feature abuse, which is quite common. If you make something abusable, people will abuse it.
Case 6 seems to be a strawman to me also. Still being preemptive about net neutrality is useful.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“Case 6 seems to be a strawman to me also. Still being preemptive about net neutrality is useful.”
If we fail to ensure Net Neutrality, you can kiss online free speech goodbye.
I think that makes case #6 pretty important.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Item #6 isn’t just a straw man; it’s simply false. No US ISP has ever censored content. “Save the Internet” is run by an inside-the-Beltway lobbying group called Free Press, which is making the “threat” up out of whole cloth so as to scare contributors into giving money. (”Give us money, or the giant bedbugs will eat Manhattan!”) “Network neutrality” is really just a drive to impose regulation on the Internet. It is being driven by lawyers (who get thousands of billable hours by helping companies to navigate the regulatory minefield) and by large content providers such as Google (which want ISPs to be regulated in such a way as to ensure that it can build its monopoly). Google is, in fact, funding all of the organizations that are most actively promoting, and lobbying for, “network neutrality” regulation. Since Google merged with Doubleclick (making it the largest purveyor of privacy-invading spyware cookies on the Internet), it has become far more of a threat to consumers than any ISP.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Well there ya go!!
“Item #6 is simply false”
“No US ISP has ever censored content”
“Save the Internet…is making the threat up…to scare contributors into giving money”
“Network neutrality is just a drive to impose regulation on the Internet” and “driven by lawyers…and large content providers”
It’s a good job Brett showed up and cleared up the whole thing!
Thanks, Brett, we can all go home now.
Can’t imagine all the time Brett’s saved us all not having to worry or talk about this anymore.
8 \
February 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Well, on CTV’s Montreal site, there is a video post.
But it appears to be an older bit with a recycled date.
http://montreal.ctv.ca/
(Under CTV VIDEO PLAYER, click “OYS: Do Not Call List”)
The reason I think it’s old stuff is because Michael Geist is not talking about iOptOut and how it is being ignored.
That would be his prime reason for making the appearance if it were a current story.
Instead, you hear words we’re all very familiar with him saying.
(i.e. “It really is a ‘Do-Not-Hesitate-To-Call list.”)
As I said, I had no expectations, and therefore will not be expressing any disappointment.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Jon,
The post at “February 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm” was made to the “CTV/DNCL” page.
Don’t know how it ended up here.
8 O
February 19th, 2009 at 8:03 am
^^ Which CTV/DNCL story?
Cheers!