By Yasmeen Abutaleb and Alastair Sharp
SAN FRANCISCO/ TORONTO, June 21 (Reuters) - At least a
dozen countries are considering or have enacted laws restricting
online speech, a trend that is alarming policymakers and others
who see the internet as a valuable medium for debate and
expression.
Such curbs are called out as a threat to the open internet
in a report on internet governance set to be released today at
an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting
in Cancun, Mexico.
The report, reviewed by Reuters, warns of dangers for the
global internet, including intrusive surveillance, rising
cybercrime and fragmentation as governments exert control of
online content.
It was prepared by the London-based Chatham House think tank
and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, founded
by former BlackBerry Ltd BB.TO co-chief Jim Balsillie.
China and Iran long have restricted online speech. Now
limitations are under discussion in countries that have had a
more open approach to speech, including Brazil, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Bolivia, Kenya and Nigeria.
Advocates said some of the proposals would criminalize
conversations online that otherwise would be protected under the
countries' constitutions. Some use broad language to outlaw
online postings that "disturb the public order" or "convey false
statements" - formulations that could enable crackdowns on
political speech, critics said.
"Free expression is one of the foundational elements of the
internet," said Michael Chertoff, former U.S. secretary of
Homeland Security and a co-author of the internet governance
report. "It shouldn't be protecting the political interests of
the ruling party or something of that sort."
Turkey and Thailand also have cracked down on online speech,
and a number of developing world countries have unplugged social
media sites altogether during elections and other sensitive
moments. In the U.S. as well, some have called for restrictions
on Internet communications.
Speech limitations create business and ethical conflicts for
companies like Facebook Inc FB.O , Twitter Inc TWTR.N and
Alphabet Inc's Google GOOGL.O , platforms for debate and
political organizing.
"This is the next evolution of political suppression," said
Richard Forno, assistant director of the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County Center for Cybersecurity. "Technology
facilitates freedom of expression, and politicians don't like
that."
"FIGHTING DELINQUENCY"
Tanzania and Ethiopia have passed laws restricting online
speech. In others, including Pakistan, Brazil, Bolivia and
Kenya, proposals are under discussion or under legislative
consideration, according to a review of laws by Reuters and
reports by Internet activist groups.
In Bolivia, President Evo Morales earlier this year said
that the country needs to "regulate the social networks." A bill
has been drafted and is ready for introduction in the
legislature, said Leonardo Loza, head of one of Bolivia's coca
growers unions, a supporter of the proposal.
"It is aimed at educating and disciplining people,
particularly young Bolivians, and fighting delinquency on social
networks," Loza said. "Freedom of expression can't be lying to
the people or insulting citizens and politicians."
A bill in Pakistan would allow the government to block
internet content to protect the "integrity, security or defense"
of the state. The legislation, which has passed a vote in
Pakistan's lower house of parliament, is supposed to target
terrorism, but critics said the language is broad.
It comes after Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 when a video
it deemed inflammatory sparked protests across the country and
much of the Muslim world.
Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed
to launch a local version of its site in the country. But now,
the internet report said, the Pakistan Telecommunications
Authority can ask the company to remove any material it finds
offensive.
COMPANIES IN THE CROSSFIRE
U.S. internet companies have faced mounting pressure in
recent years to restrict content. Companies' terms of service
lay out what users can and cannot post, and they said they apply
a single standard globally. They aim to comply with local laws,
but often confront demands to remove even legal content.
The new laws threaten to raise a whole new set of compliance
and enforcement issues.
"There's a technical question, which is, could you comply if
you wanted to, and then the bigger meta question is why would
you want to cooperate with this politicized drive to suppress
freedom of expression," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's former
director of global policy and now leading content organization
at Medium.
Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment for this
story.