Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-243"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.35.4-243"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, countries such as China and Cuba, Burma and Belarus – and the resolution names dozens of others – are placing tighter and tighter restrictions on the use of the Internet, and it is understandable that they should do so, for if there is anything that is a vehicle of free expression of opinion, that serves the opposition and the development of opposition to totalitarian states, then the Internet is it, and Internet service providers have always made a great thing of the freedom, specifically of information, that the Internet affords.
Yet it is quite often American and European ISPs that make it easier for free expression of opinion to be interfered with by, for example, agreeing to allow their services to be censored. American companies, for example Google, Microsoft and, in particular, Yahoo, have, in China, stirred up a hornets’ nest. A number of other companies have, of course, been doing the same thing: Secure Computing and Fortinet in Tunisia and Burma, Cisco Systems too, but European firms are also among them, examples being Telecom Italia in Cuba and Wanadoo – which belongs to France Telecom – in Tunisia.
It is of course intolerable that Western businesses should be helping repressive governments to trample human rights underfoot. The first thing to be done is for the European institutions to draw up a code of conduct in which they undertake not to have a hand in actions aimed at repressing what goes on online. It must also be stressed that businesses providing search, chat, publishing or other services on the Internet must do everything they can to ensure that the rights of consumers to use the Internet are fully safeguarded.
In China, there are now 48 cyber-dissidents behind bars, simply and solely because they deviated from the path through the Internet mapped out for them by the authorities. It is, to my mind, unthinkable that Western businesses should give active assistance to these repressive and authoritarian regimes by maintaining censorship. That sort of collaboration runs counter to fundamental European values such as the free expression of opinion and freedom of information. Free expression of opinion must remain a priority on the Internet, indeed, on the Internet in particular. American legislators are working on a
and it goes without saying that Europe cannot stand on the sidelines.
Even if we insist on legislation, I would prefer to see an attempt made at working out a code of conduct in order to see what we can sort out with the companies in question. We must also make it perfectly clear what we stand for. At the end of the day, of course, the problem does not primarily lie with the Internet companies, but with the repressive regimes themselves. Trade and communication with such countries can often have a beneficial influence, and of that I am, generally in favour, albeit not, of course, if we allow these regimes to bully us as regards what we trade in or what we communicate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Global Online Freedom Act"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples