New opportunities for people to have their concerns on a wide variety of issues heard and to exchange ideas with the world community have been provided by the rapid growth in the Internet and Internet technologies. Prominent amongst these concerns are matters affecting how they are governed and the conduct of multi-national corporations.

Today, on the Internet, there are various discussion forums where people post comments and exchange ideas on various matters of interest to them. The main objectives of these discussion forums are to promote the right to free speech and to encourage and promote the sharing of knowledge and ideas.

One needs to understand how the idea of free speech originally arose in order to understand why it is necessary to have a free speech. Some people argue that it will also help to understand the boundaries of free speech beyond which it becomes necessary to have certain controls to limit its negative consequences.

The concept of rights to free speech has its historical root in the days when powerful and important religious and political ideas were being suppressed by the establishment of the time. But “Rights" necessarily imply responsibilities on the part of those seeking refuge in them. Today, it is hard to see many people posting comments on the Internet being capable of recognising that fact.

Most people who advocate free speech do not understand what it really means when viewed in the context of the Internet. We must be clear about one thing, "free speech" doesn't necessarily include the right to incite or commit crimes. The criminal law has long recognised this and will continue to do so. In other words, the right to free speech is not absolute but the degree of freedom varies from country to country. However, we must recognise that certain moves against free speech on the Internet will inevitably end up being used for political purposes. We must also guard against that.

A significant majority of these Internet forums are unregulated and allow people to say whatever they want to say, however and whenever they want to say it. All that is required is a personal computer and access to the Internet. Many commentators have used the forums to wage an ill-motivated propaganda war against a legitimate government so as to influence its policies towards the direction they advocate.

Some extreme rightwing groups are also using the Internet to promote hatred and/or violence against some ethnic and religious groups. Criminals groups under the disguise of promoting choice and freedom of speech are using the Internet to promote indecency. Others are knowingly sending and sharing information that breach copyright law.

A recent case example was DRM key that was mistakenly published by AACS. The key allows users to play the HDDVD disks on any HDDVD player of your choice. That is if you buy a DRM “infested” disk, the manufacturer who create it wanted you to play it only on the device they want and the output they want. Someone saw it and passed the information round for everyone to use. The question therefore was whether such a conduct could be defended under the principles of free speech. Can one really justify cracking the DRM? Why must a consumer who doesn’t agree with the copy protection that a particular medium employs buy it? If everyone adopts similar attitude why must we expect a manufacturer to spend huge sums on product research and development?

The above reflects the misunderstanding people have of what really is freedom of speech. You are at liberty to buy or not to buy that particular brand of DVD. A right to watch a DVD that you have purchased, whenever and wherever you please is a right that you can only exercise at that point in time when you chose that brand knowing it’s limitations.

Imagine a situation where someone came across your personal details (including your full names, address, bank account details and cash point card personal identification number) and decided to publish them on the Internet. Would you consider that a free speech? I guess your answer will be NO, It would be inviting people to rob you, which is exactly what this DRM key was doing.

The Internet remains one of the greatest creations of mankind.  Accepting that we are being watched, the Internet allows a place to exist where people can say what they think and throw tantrums via their personal computers keyboards without fear of persecution. Of course, as often the case with everything else, there are some people who will abuse this facility in an abhorrent way to physically, emotionally, and mentally hurt people. In these cases free speech should be overruled.

There is no doubt that we all want free speech on the Internet. We need to ask ourselves if free speech without accountability can be allowed. The Internet today is full of bullying and profanities. There has to be a rule that clearly requires you to be able to defend whatever you write. There must be a way to regulate the system such that anonymous postings by people can be traced back to them should there be a need to.

If the Internet is to be regulated it must be within acceptable international law, with due regards to the fundamental human rights convention and enforceable only by those countries that are signatories to that charter.

Some people argue that the Internet is difficult to police. Others do not share that view. The ISP through which the comments were made can suspend the offending website. An ISP who is a persistent offender can itself be suspended. The same goes for the country. The whole rot would soon clean up.

People should be allowed to say what they feel about issues without unnecessary regulatory restraints. However the overriding principle should be sincerity of purpose in any comments. Therefore effective impartial moderation can achieve the required objective of preventing abuse of the freedom of speech that the Internet provides.

Let me sum this up with the following comment by John Paul Stevens (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States):

"Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority."

Robot  Villager

# 1 Criminals groups under the disguise of promoting choice and freedom of speech are using the...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 03.08.2007 13:17

Sapele Man  Villager

# 2 =Robot;197212> There is no doubt that we all want free speech on the Internet. We need to ask ourselves if free speech without accountability can be allowed. The Internet today is full of bullying and profanities. There has to be a rule that clearly requires you to be able to defend whatever you write. There must be a way to regulate the system such that anonymous postings by people can be traced back to them should there be a need to. If the Internet is to be regulated it must be within acceptable international law, with due regards to the fundamental human rights convention and enforceable only by those countries that are signatories to that charter. Recent happenings in NVS give credence to the need for tighter regulation of postings/bloggs on the Internet. There are people on the square who appear to team up with like minds to intimidate and abuse any one whose views are not in line with theirs. Such attitude can actually suppress one’s freedom of speech. The difficulty has always been that those appointed to moderate what is published are themselves using their own subjective judgements in deciding what is right or suitable for publication. That can become a hindrance to free speech. The way forward is for each forum to have rules that are strictly applied. People will therefore choose a forum whose rules are acceptable to them. After all, we only join a club whose objectives are similar to ours. Posted by Sapele Man| 03.08.2007 16:02

Enforcer  Villager

# 3 =Sapele Man;197247>Recent happenings in NVS give credence to the need for tighter regulation of postings/bloggs on the Internet. There are people on the square who appear to team up with like minds to intimidate and abuse any one whose views are not in line with theirs. Such attitude can actually suppress one’s freedom of speech. The difficulty has always been that those appointed to moderate what is published are themselves using their own subjective judgements in deciding what is right or suitable for publication. That can become a hindrance to free speech. The way forward is for each forum to have rules that are strictly applied. People will therefore choose a forum whose rules are acceptable to them. After all, we only join a club whose objectives are similar to ours. Sapele Man, I know you had some runnings with the Son of the Delta. I also read your interesting comment (or frustration?) on the Anon, Auspicious and Jah-Guda episode. But I cannot see any of those as a basis for calling for stricter control. You seem to ignore another valuable freedom, the freedom to associate. I do not see anything wrong with people of like minds sharing experiences and holding common views on issues. Is this not the same reason why we have political associations? You see, the problem with rules is that they only reflect the moral beliefs and knowledge of those setting them. They limits the ability of those setting the rules to develop and improve on their own knowledge, which an open forum could provide. Where do we go from here then? Posted by Enforcer| 03.08.2007 17:35

Sapele Man  Villager

# 4 =Enforcer;197281>Sapele Man, You seem to ignore another valuable freedom, the freedom to associate. I do not see anything wrong with people of like minds sharing experiences and holding common views on issues. Is this not the same reason why we have political associations? You see, the problem with rules is that they only reflect the moral beliefs and knowledge of those setting them. They limits the ability of those setting the rules to develop and improve on their own knowledge, which an open forum could provide. Where do we go from here then? Enforcer, Yes, agreed. The rules are part of the choices that the members have to make in deciding whether or not to join the forum. Isn't it? The creators of that forum can adapt to market demand. All they need do is give notice to current members of the impending changes to the governing rules. Current members are free to accept the changes and remain members. Members that aren't happy can move to another forum that suit their needs. Isn't that the way forward? Posted by Sapele Man| 04.08.2007 02:38

Son of the Delta  Villager

# 5 The reason people discuss is to enhance themselves and this fundamental right should not be restricted in normal societies. If you are abused rob it off, if you can stoop so low counter abuse. Posted by Son of the Delta| 04.08.2007 07:10

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 6 The difficulty has always been that those appointed to moderate what is published are themselves using their own subjective judgements in deciding what is right or suitable for publication. That can become a hindrance to free speech. Gentlemen, Just took off time to scan through NVS while away from base. I am wholly with Sapele Man on this. Particularly his statement quoted above is a true reflection of the reality on the ground. I know at least one person up there who holds his subjective views as a benchmark for credibility. It is even a mystery how articles of the month, week or year are selected. No one is aware of the underlying objectives rules. It all sounds like whims and caprices. This, if not changed in due course, may become NVS' own nemesis. A reputable web site cannot survive on the long run by simply adopting the gallery as its credibility benchmark. On the other hand, I hold my thumb high for Shokoloko Bangoshe for also coming to my aid at a critical time when mischief was at play. I was indeed, a victim of the issue addressed by the author in the following sentence: Imagine a situation where someone came across your personal details (including your full names, address, bank account details and cash point card personal identification number) and decided to publish them on the Internet. Would you consider that a free speech? I guess your answer will be NO A clearer and more objective line should be drawn on all issues of abuse. Cheers folks Posted by Frisky Larr| 04.08.2007 08:47

Mikky jaga  Villager

# 7 The world is moving away from restrictions to freedom and it has paid off handsomely. The internet you are talking about is because some people were allowed freedom to imagine and make things happen. When we begin to police thoughts, words and actions we restrict inventiveness and the world will be duller for it. Let every id iot open his mouth wide, some wise fellows will learn one thing or two from that. The rule is: If the hunter learns to shoot without missing, the birds will learn to fly without perching. If some people become unscrupulous to publish private or classified items on internet, those who have such information should device better ways of keeping their secrets secret. It will be useless preaching to manufacturers of virus to stop their evil deeds. All you have to do is invent anti virus to take care of new viruses as soon as they are released. If you do not like what somebody is saying on the net, just ignore him and move quickly on. He/she will not force you to read what you do not want to read. Some women prefer to throw their clothes off and get themselves videoed for the internet. If you do not go to such sites, you cannot claim they assault your sensibilities. Freedom and more freedom will liberate us. Posted by Mikky jaga| 04.08.2007 15:41

Enforcer  Villager

# 8 =Son of the Delta;197383>The reason people discuss is to enhance themselves and this fundamental right should not be restricted in normal societies. If you are abused rob it off, if you can stoop so low counter abuse. Son of the Delta, Agreed. You are looking at a situation where someone says something rude. It's no problem if the issue is just a mere discussion. Take for example, yours and my view of OBJ performance, which does no harm to anyone. But the issue here is to what extent must one be allowed to publish whatever they like on the Internet. To what extent should a publication be objectively moderated and how do you decide the rules without suppressing people's freedom of speech? Posted by Enforcer| 05.08.2007 12:35

Enforcer  Villager

# 9 =Mikky jaga;197469>The world is moving away from restrictions to freedom and it has paid off handsomely. The internet you are talking about is because some people were allowed freedom to imagine and make things happen. When we begin to police thoughts, words and actions we restrict inventiveness and the world will be duller for it. Let every id iot open his mouth wide, some wise fellows will learn one thing or two from that. The rule is: If the hunter learns to shoot without missing, the birds will learn to fly without perching. If some people become unscrupulous to publish private or classified items on internet, those who have such information should device better ways of keeping their secrets secret. It will be useless preaching to manufacturers of virus to stop their evil deeds. All you have to do is invent anti virus to take care of new viruses as soon as they are released. If you do not like what somebody is saying on the net, just ignore him and move quickly on. He/she will not force you to read what you do not want to read. Some women prefer to throw their clothes off and get themselves videoed for the internet. If you do not go to such sites, you cannot claim they assault your sensibilities. Freedom and more freedom will liberate us. Mikky jaga, I don't know if I get you right. Are you saying that it is ok for someone who happens to come across your personal details to go ahead and publish them on the Internet, even if it means armed robbers may have access to that confidential details? And you agreed that whatever happens to you is your fault as you ought to have devised method to keep your details safe? Are you sure you aren’t a lonely voice in the wilderness on this? Posted by Enforcer| 05.08.2007 15:30

Mikky jaga  Villager

# 10 Enforcer, It is easier for a man to find a way to keep his secret documents secret than it is to make laws to regulate the internet, considering its world wide nature. People that have valuable documents keep them in Bank's vaults, away from prying eyes. Freedom of Information Bill is still in the works. What is freedom of information if we still need policemen to check what information is right and wrong. Freedom and more freedom will liberate us Posted by Mikky jaga| 06.08.2007 04:34

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---