Reporters without Borders
Reporters without borders
Interest in the Internet, which has absolutely revolutionized the world’s media, has caught everyone’s attention including many of the world’s dictators. Dictators have become aware of this tool of free expression. Such countries like China have begun to use their wealth to censor the Internet proving that like traditional media that it too can be controlled. "Cyber-dissents," have been monitored and even jailed for stirring up anti-government sentiments. China has drafted a set of very harsh rules to target any cyber-dissidence. These actions began a ripple effect of imitators in other anti freedom of press countries.
China, Vietnam, and the Maldives were the only ones to jail cyber-dissidents in 2003. Now many countries have done the same or worse. Punishments range from imprisonment to torture. Governments’ censorship of the Web has expanded from monitoring to banning sites and even needing official permission to own computers. Burma uses sophisticated technology to spy and copy what’s on cybercafes computer screens every five minutes. These counties have acquired this technology and know how from the American firms. These same countries have passed on their cyber-spying techniques to other counties as well. The European Union has recently implemented Internet rules that require Internet service providers (ISPs) to keep records of customer’s online activity.
In the Americas, Cuba imprisoned twenty and killed seven journalists in 2005; others faced surveillance or exile. Columbia is weak from civil war, Mexico’s drug trafficking hampers all aspects of journalist’s freedom. Peru and Venezuela use verbal and physical threats making the journalists censor themselves. In the United States, not wanting to reveal her sources, a journalist was imprisoned for the first time. In Peru, President Hugo Chavez broadcast a law about the media’s "social responsibility." This gave the national telecommunications commission power to ban radio and TV that incited anti-sentiment towards his government.
In Bolivia, President Carlos Mesa was forced to resign over a dispute of nationalization of gas reserves. The media has remained free unaffected by this instability. In two separate incidents reporters were physically attacked one by the police and the other by drug traffickers.
I believe that censorship is wrong when it comes to the Internet. The Internet is the only place where a single user can make his or her voice heard and could possible make a difference as well as bring about changes. Unfortunately with dictatorships, this is not open to discussion and so the dismantling of the Internet in these countries is a sad and unsettling fact. I am also very disillusioned with American firms that just want to make money no matter what the outcome of their actions may be.
Interest in the Internet, which has absolutely revolutionized the world’s media, has caught everyone’s attention including many of the world’s dictators. Dictators have become aware of this tool of free expression. Such countries like China have begun to use their wealth to censor the Internet proving that like traditional media that it too can be controlled. "Cyber-dissents," have been monitored and even jailed for stirring up anti-government sentiments. China has drafted a set of very harsh rules to target any cyber-dissidence. These actions began a ripple effect of imitators in other anti freedom of press countries.
China, Vietnam, and the Maldives were the only ones to jail cyber-dissidents in 2003. Now many countries have done the same or worse. Punishments range from imprisonment to torture. Governments’ censorship of the Web has expanded from monitoring to banning sites and even needing official permission to own computers. Burma uses sophisticated technology to spy and copy what’s on cybercafes computer screens every five minutes. These counties have acquired this technology and know how from the American firms. These same countries have passed on their cyber-spying techniques to other counties as well. The European Union has recently implemented Internet rules that require Internet service providers (ISPs) to keep records of customer’s online activity.
In the Americas, Cuba imprisoned twenty and killed seven journalists in 2005; others faced surveillance or exile. Columbia is weak from civil war, Mexico’s drug trafficking hampers all aspects of journalist’s freedom. Peru and Venezuela use verbal and physical threats making the journalists censor themselves. In the United States, not wanting to reveal her sources, a journalist was imprisoned for the first time. In Peru, President Hugo Chavez broadcast a law about the media’s "social responsibility." This gave the national telecommunications commission power to ban radio and TV that incited anti-sentiment towards his government.
In Bolivia, President Carlos Mesa was forced to resign over a dispute of nationalization of gas reserves. The media has remained free unaffected by this instability. In two separate incidents reporters were physically attacked one by the police and the other by drug traffickers.
I believe that censorship is wrong when it comes to the Internet. The Internet is the only place where a single user can make his or her voice heard and could possible make a difference as well as bring about changes. Unfortunately with dictatorships, this is not open to discussion and so the dismantling of the Internet in these countries is a sad and unsettling fact. I am also very disillusioned with American firms that just want to make money no matter what the outcome of their actions may be.
posted by Buddha at 7:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home