Freedom of the internet threatened? U.S. helpless to stop it?

By Wes Vernon

On many fronts, the new alternative media is fighting off attempts to undermine and/or destroy it.

There is legislation on Capitol Hill aimed at driving conservative radio talk show hosts off the air. Backed by liberal Democrats, it would revive the old discredited "Fairness Doctrine," a name which in and of itself carries Orwellian overtones.

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine decreed that when a broadcaster put a commentator on the air arguing for one position, he would have to provide "equal time" for the other view. It was in effect from 1949 to1987. Its demise is the legacy of President Reagan who vetoed legislation to keep it alive.

"Equal time?" Sounds fair. But here's the catch: In reality, the audience market is for conservative hosts. Why? Because one can get the liberal view from the old line establishment media. You get the left perspective on the world from ABC, CBS NBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, and almost everywhere you turn.

Thus, if the Fairness Doctrine is re-imposed, radio stations, for example, would have to find some liberal hosts to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other personalities who have met the demand of a public that had been starved for conservative broadcasts. As Rush says, "I am equal time." Under the Fairness Doctrine, if the station manager can't find a liberal host who can attract an audience, well, then, too bad. Guess he would just have to get rid of Rush and Sean. Every liberal radio host who has tried to become a "Limbaugh of the Left" has flopped.

In the same vein, there is an effort afoot to do in the people's medium — the newest kid on the block — the Internet. This move is on the international level.

The Internet has been a godsend for citizen expression. It has served as a means whereby "We the People" have held to account those who affect our lives — public officials, the media, corporate boardrooms, labor hierarchies, international organizations, and others.

You might conclude there are powerful forces out there who are unhappy with that. You would be right. Based on its track record, you might suspect that the United Nations would want to find a way to interfere and impose "international control," with uncertain consequences. Again, you would be right on target. You might further suspect that some of the strongest proponents of such international governance have censored the information available to their citizens. In a word, yes.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, has been leading the way against the takeover. His Senate Resolution specifically notes that "some nations in support of transferring Internet governance to an entity affiliated with the United Nations or another international entity, might seek to have such an entity endorse national policies that block access to information, stifle political dissent, and maintain outmoded communications structures."

The resolution further adds the structure and control of the Internet "has profound implications for homeland security, competition and trade, democratization, free expression, access to information, privacy, and the protection of intellectual property, and the threat of some nations to take unilateral actions that could fracture the root zone file would result in a less functional Internet with diminished benefits for all people."

This is not an idle concern. China, Cuba, Iran, and several African states with questionable records on freedom of expression have insisted that the U.S. give up control.

China — for example — has imposed regulation to control what will be offered on its news websites. Only "healthy and civilized" news will be allowed.

And what is "healthy and civilized" news? China's answer: News sites "must be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests." This marks a further crackdown by the Chinese Communist government. Already, reportedly with the help over 40,000 computer experts, postings that criticize the government or address sensitive topics are quickly removed.

When one has the microphone or the ink, it is natural for him to assume that his presentation is "healthy." Right here in this country, it was the Internet that blew the whistle on Newsweek's story about the impossible action of tossing an 1813-page Koran down the toilet. And when Dan Rather thought he had nailed President Bush with phony National Guard documents, well — there was the web to blow the whistle on yet another ("healthy?") report in the mainstream media.

Next month, the UN-sponsored world Summit on the Information Society is meeting in Tunisia to discuss this issue, likely the beginning of a prolonged international debate and a "grave threat" to the Internet, according to Senator Coleman, who says, "There is no rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet governance regime that must be fostered and protected."

The senator is speaking of "governance" in a very narrow sense of the word. Such governance falls under the wing of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Created by the U.S. Commerce Department in 1998, it administers the "root zone file" — which is the list of web addresses throughout the world. This is the process by which a given address or name is assigned to just one website.

The "root zone file" accredits entities to assign domain names such as this website's www.renewamerica.com. ICANN manages the domains such as .com and .org. Some are specific to single nations. This would include .ca for Canada, for example. ICANN works with authorities in each nation to make sure everything works smoothly. Beyond that, there is no real "governance," certainly not in terms of content.

Question: If China and other countries already block their own people from viewing "unhealthy" news websites, what is their problem with free countries taking advantage of ICANN's hands-off policy as to content? What is the point? Are there things they want to prevent Americans or the people of other free nations from seeing? If so, what?

The UN working group that set up the November conference says the new international Internet body would respect freedom of expression. Yet, it defines as its goals such high-sounding phrases as "respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, tradition, [and] religion....that translates to multicultural, diverse and culturally appropriate content." By whose standards? Beijing's? Tehran's? Havana's? The working paper doesn't say.

Our friends in the European Union have turned against the U.S. on this issue. Perhaps they would like to tell us who would define "culturally appropriate content." Brussels, maybe?

Sweden's former Prime Minister Carl Bildt has written, "This is not where Europe should be on this issue. The Internet is vital to our future, and we Europeans should be as keen as anyone to preserve the essence of a system that has worked amazingly well."

Milton Mueller, author of "Ruling the Root," tells the Guardian that in his judgment, an international overseeing council "could interfere" with standards. "The idea of the council is so vague," he says that "it's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from getting in the way of things that other people do."

Then there is the issue of global taxation. No publicly revealed plan to pay for this new bureaucracy is apparent as of now. But many, including Richard Lessner's GIGAlliance, anticipate that international control of the Internet could lead to a back door tax worldwide.

President Bush has said this country has "no present intention of relinquishing the historic leadership role the United States has played" in the Internet. No doubt international bureaucrats will do a replay of the president's opposition to the Kyoto "global warming" treaty" and the International Criminal Court (ICC). i.e. — "Unilateralist" America. But the Internet was invented in the United States. The U.S. has brought forth a medium that is leading to a better worldwide information exchange than ever before. We offer others the opportunity to share in the blessings of this uncensored vehicle of expression. If some nations block its content to their people, that leaves millions the world over to ask why.

© Wes Vernon