Or: We’re from the government–and we’re here to help. In Perspective: Let global online freedom ring?, my former partner, e-commerce law expert Eric Sinrod critiques the proposed Global Online Freedom Act of 2006. Like the hideous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which outlaws US companies or citizens paying bribes to foreign officials even if this is the only way to do business there, the GOFA also uses US citizens and businesses as pawns in an attempt to manipulate the policies of other nations.
Notes Sinrod,
The bill states that its purpose is “to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States business from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes.”As part of the bill, Congress would make various findings, including:
• “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees freedom ‘to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers’”
The law would allow the President to designate certain foreign countries as “Internet-restricting” regions that are “directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding one-year period.” It would prevent US businesses from engaging in various Internet-related actions in these “Internet-restricting” countries, e.g. locating computer hardware there or modifying search engines or search terms at the request of the host state (gee, I wonder who they have in mind?).Of course, “The bill contemplates potentially serious civil and criminal penalties for violations.”
As Sinrod sensibly notes,
U.S. businesses provide an online service to people in other countries within the given frameworks of those countries. One must think that their presence in these countries and the service they provide is a positive development, even if not perfect, based on any constraints put in place.To the extent significant penalties are put in place, it is possible that U.S. businesses will retreat from the online services they are providing in other countries. And then, Netizens in those countries might have less, not more, freedom.
Is it realistic to think that Internet-restricting countries will change their restricting policies because U.S. businesses might be penalized because of the restrictions put in place in those countries? The restrictions are established at the government level, and are not directed or controlled by the U.S. businesses.
There might be a better way to seek to achieve global online freedom, notwithstanding the lofty goals of H.R. 4780.
… Its attempt to punish U.S. online businesses in other countries could actually lead to less online freedom, if those companies decide to stop doing business in those countries.
But this is not the end of the problems with the bill. First, it lends support and credibility to the socialistic Universal Declaration of Human Rights [sic] (2, 3), which provides, for example:
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Hey, Congress–let’s just leave this little piece of socialistic yearning alone, shall we?
Moreover, I find it sadly amusing that the US government arrogates to itself the right to identify “Internet-restricting” regions and arrogantly presupposes that it is not one, that it is a beacon of freedom. Hmm, let’s look at the definition of an “Internet-restricting” country: it is one that is “directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom”.
Let’s just call to mind the multifarious ways that US policies and laws “directly or indirectly” “systematically” impose “substantial restrictions” on speech and communications on the Internet–that is, various US government actions/policies/laws that explicitly or implicitly censor, chill, or affect free speech. Immediate examples that come to mind include:
1. Copyright law: restricts what and how you can say things. Plus they are pushing other states to ratchet up their own copyright regulations.
2. DMCA: restricts you from telling others how to circumvent encryption
3. Export controls: US gov’t has regulations criminalizing giving certain information (e.g. encryption technology/software) to other nations, at least without permission
4. Political correctness–e.g., antidiscrimination laws, affirmative action laws, and various policies implemented in response to this, such as campus speech codes, etc. It seems to me that the existence of these policies and institutions curtail speech–they make only the most brave, or more likely, those with nothing to lose (losers/marginal nuts)–willing to buck this and say politically incorrect things; most poeple have too much to lose (e.g., jobs, promotions, social standing) to risk it saying controversial things about race, gender, etc.
5. Defamation laws (libel, slander)
6. Government propaganda–e.g., about democracy, environmentalism–exerts an influence on what speech there is, by brainwashing/propagandizing people. this is exacerbated by the very existence and prevalence of…
7. Government schools, which further indoctrinate children (and teachers and parents) with government propaganda.
8. Merely having a huge public bureacracy, which tends to sway the views, at least the spoken views, of its hundreds of thousands of employees (e.g., employees of NASA of course believe the government should fund space exploration, etc.).
9. Also various tax regulations, such as non-profit regulations. E.g., 501c3 charities and churches and their code of conduct; there is even a video called “Political Intervention: Do’s and Don’ts for 501(c)(3) Organizations” [thanks to Manuel Lora for that one] — example:
IRS to churches: Don’t play politics
10. in fact, all regulation and taxation of business stifles free speech. Businessmen are intimidated out of ever speaking out publicly because “we have to work with these people.” So they try to get around this by giving money to think tanks to surreptitiously speak for them, but that doesn’t seem so sucessful… [thanks to Tom DiLorenzo for that one] (Tom D also told me, “Milton Friedman had an article on this topic in the Journal of Law and Economics at least 20 years ago but I can’t recall the citation. I think the title may have been “Free Speech and Free Markets” or something like that.” if anyone knows this link, please send to me.)
Pot, meet kettle.
{ 5 comments }
One minor quibble with the above:
“the hideous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which outlaws US companies or citizens paying bribes to foreign officials even if this is the only way to do business there,”
Actually, if you look at the link you gave, it mentions that it allows “grease payments”, i.e., payments that are necessary in order to do business there. This is different from “bribery” which refers to paying for something you have no right to, such as an advantage over your competitors. This distinction, in the context of the FCPA, is taught in ethics courses. So it is something of a contradction to say it prohibits bribes “even when necessary to do business there” … if they’re necessary, they’re grease payments and allowed.
(Note: I have disagreed with a minor part of a post by Stephan Kinsella. If history is any guide, this will result in him calling me a socialist and/or criminal, demanding to know my position on a whole host of issues, attributing to me positions I didn’t take and arguments I don’t support for those positions, and revealing personal information about me as a means of intimidation. I do not plan to dignify any of that this time around; my point was just to correct the comment about the FCPA. I thought I’d warn everyone about what would result from me doing so.)
Person– your insults are unwarranted. I only allege socialism when it is implied in a point someone makes. In your case, you are just attempting to correct a minor and irrelevant legal technicality. My post was not dependent on the FCPA or my interpretation of it, it was just an example of a similar regulation. Nonetheless, I think you are mistaken, although I could have phrased my point better were this not a blog and the FCPA not a minor issue. The fact is that sometimes bribes that go beyond grease payments are indeed necessary to do business; and these are criminalized; and therefore, the FCPA does in fact prohibit bribes even if they are necessary to do business. I.e., there is an exception for grease payments (payments made to an official to expedite his performance of the duties he is already bound to perform), but there is NOT an exception for “bribes that are necessary”.
Stephan_Kinsella: Everything I accused you of is completely true. You affirmed the truth by again revealing personal information that only blog admins have access to (my email handle) in an attempt to intimidate me (“look at the information I could reveal to others”). Your concept of “socialist/criminal” extends to “someone who doesn’t believe one of your premeses implies your conclusion”. That is a clear misuse of the concept and an unwarranted insult on me. You have also in the past dodged issues by attempting to know my position on other issues and it is 100% true that you have falsely attribued positions to me it was clear I did not hold them. These are not “insults”; they are factual statements of things you have repeatedly done in the past. If you consider them insulting, you consider your own actions insulting.
The reason I brought up that minor quibble (which you, of course, felt necessary to remind me was a minor quibble — even I can’t figure out that one) was because your statement would lead the average person to believe the FCPA doesn’t make exceptions for “necessary” costs of doing business. You need to be careful about not misrepresenting facts. I understand that this is “just a blog post”, but that is in no sense an excuse. If someone gave me “just a rough draft” of an idea, I wouldn’t even look at it unless it was loaded with detailed citation of claims and full literature review. I’d assume they were just some college student who daydreamed the idea. You can’t be careless if you want to be taken seriously.
Oh for god’s sake, save it, save the melodrama. I took your thing out, sheesh don’t have a hissy fit.
Oh for goodness sake. Relax man. I call anyone a socialist who advocate ideas that I believe are socialist. Duh! Alert the media!
How dishonest of me, to attempt to find out your view of things!
Wow; and to think, all you had to do was go ahead and set the record straight by clarifying your views. No, I guess that would “make too much sense,” as my dad used to say.
Okay.
Lotta ifs there, pardner.
Keep trying, you’ll succeed.
Okay.
And that is what is important–to “be taken seriously”. By anonymous gadflies.
The FCPA is an abomination and any businessman will snort his milk out of his nose if you tell him there are reasonable exceptions for “necessary” costs of doing business. Now that would be something to alert the media for!
Ho-kay, I’ve deleted our more contentious exchanges, for the benefit of the readers. Even my very witty one. I suppose one reason I mentioned the FCPA offhand is I was somewhat familiar with it, having written on it a while back. “The Accounting Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal p. 199 (Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer 1994).
Comments on this entry are closed.