Rhetorically, everyone supports Internet freedom. “Freedom,” though, means quite different things, and carries diverse weights when measured against other interests in various countries and cultures. This normative divergence plays out in debates over access, threats to freedom, online content controls, and governance. In short, the concept of “Internet freedom” holds within it a set of conflicts about how the ‘Net should function. Acknowledging openly these tensions is better than clinging to wording that masks inevitable, hard choices.
First, access to the network is a prerequisite for enjoying Internet freedom, however defined. States differ, though, on whether individuals are entitled to that access. Some see Internet access — particularly high-speed broadband access — as a right, while others conceive it as a privilege. Finland, for example, has stated that having a 1MB connection is a basic human right of Finnish citizens. Similarly, France’s Constitutional Council declared that Internet access is a legal right. The United States, by contrast, views the ability to go on-line as a market good like any other, rather than seeing it as an entitlement. If you can’t afford to connect to the ‘net, you remain offline, or dependent on publicly available access sites at libraries and schools.
Add new comment