The right to information is always correlative to the right to freedom of expression. Without ample knowledge about the events happening in the society, how could one’s expression about them be at its most free?
The right to information curtailed would directly bring about a subsequent derailment of the right to freedom of expression. With falsehood, deception, disinformation and fraudulent assertions as bases for rendering opinion which will be expressed by the people, it is but inevitable that the said opinions are already tainted to be equally limited and erroneous.
In this world which has abdicated slavery and declared it as inhuman, always championing the notion of a free peoples, it is sad to discover that in some parts of the world, it seems that such declarations of championing freedom of expression and the right to information are nothing but just lip service.
CASE IN POINT: CHINA AND INTERNET FILTERING (SPOTLIGHT ON THE 2008 BEIJING OLYMPICS)
The Olympics are to be held this year, its opening ceremonies to be held specifically on August 8, 2008 at Beijing, China. There is much excitement over this event for at this time, the world once again, sends their Herculeses and Strenuas (goddess of strength) to compete with each other, whereby the limits of man’s physical prowess will be tested and stretched.
It promises to be quite a show, and for that reason, various journalists and broadcasters all over the globe fought for the chance to be in this event- both as a reporter and spectator.
However, as journalists eagerly flocked to Beijing at the Olympic Village Press Center, they are appalled upon their determination that the internet, one of their vital sources of information, had been tampered with. They are not able to access a lot of sites, much to their consternation. This is said to be contrary to the primary arrangement between the International Olympics committee (IOC) and the Chinese government whereby the latter promised that in the Press Center, the Internet will not be censored. But later on, the IOC agreed to some limitations imposed by the Chinese government, sanctioning the blocking of some websites due to their political content. On August 2, 2008, the Associated Press reported that although Chinese organizers unblocked some sites at the request of the IOC, others remained censored for journalists covering the Summer Games. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China)
Such a move has caused a furor among different sectors in various nations across the globe. An unnamed member of the committee who voted for China’s bid to host the games even said to the effect that if he had known about this, he would have reconsidered China being a host to the games. China’s longstanding history of violations of Human rights have been quite well-known, the curtailment of the human rights to access of information and the right to freedom as addition to that long list. It is in order to get an idea of what internet filtering is, and the history of the Chinese government’s attitude in this respect to arrive to an understanding of this happening and to provide for feasible moves that one could undertake to compel China to stop such curtailment of human rights.
INTERNET FILTERING AND CHINA
The main point of Internet Filtering is to restrict the access of end-users to content from several sources, in the Internet’s case, websites. This may be done in several ways as illustrated in China’s Golden Shield Project, a.k.a. The Great Firewall of China. This project is a censorship and surveillance project operated by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of the People's Republic of China. The project started in 1998 and began operations in November of 2003. Its purpose of inception is mainly to construct a communication network and computer information system for police to improve their capability and efficiency. Under this project, internet filtering is done by the state in itself through blocking content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested.
It operates as a standard firewall with a certain distinctive quality. As stated in the study of Zittrain and Edelman from Harvard Law School, Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China, unlike the blocking done as in some libraries in the US wherein upon accessing the website, and it cannot be retrieved, one is informed that the reason for such happening is that it is blocked. In China’s case, it is different, in such a way that one, upon not accessing a certain site, would be given a message of ‘Page Not Found’, so it is hard to assume whether the unavailability of the site was due to intentional blockage by the government or just a computer glitch.
This project is especially sanctioned and promoted by the Chinese government in itself, their cost of undertaking the project reaching up to 800 Million US Dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China). Internet filtering allowed through promulgation of State Orders and regulations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)
COMPELLING CHINA
Why China must be compelled to lift Internet Filtering (with emphasis on the Beijing Olympics Coverage)
China must be compelled to lift Internet Filtering due to three vital points: First, based on a number of studies that examined the nature of the sites blocked by the Chinese government, it has failed to adduce evidence that these sites indeed are detrimental to state interest and public order in their essence. Secondly, China, being a member of the United Nations and in its bidding to host the 2008 Beijing Olympics, is bound to uphold the laws of the international community, specifically, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically, Article 19, the rights to freedom of access of information and expression. Finally, the Internet, being a source that virtually pools in all information from all the different corners of the globe, and bringing different types of people, with varying nationalities, in contact with each other in real-time, jurisdiction over China in this respect is not a question anymore, due to the issue being elevated to an international plane which is the effect of the global-linking nature of the Internet.
First point: based on a number of studies that examined the nature of the sites blocked by the Chinese government, it has failed to adduce evidence that these sites indeed are detrimental to state interest and public order in their essence.
China, as stated earlier, has undertaken a lawful censorship of the Internet by ways of State Orders and Regulations. Although these are always assailed as contrary to the said nation’s 1982 constitution guarantee of freedom of speech, the Chinese government often uses the subversion of state power clause to imprison those who are critical of the government. Concomitant to that, this “interest of maintaining the order” is often the exception availed of by the Chinese government in justifying their blatant and often labeled as, overcensorship of the internet.
However, in the study conducted on the nature of Internet sites stated earlier by Zittrain and Edelman, the researchers have found that only about 13% of the sites blocked (which at that time that the study was conducted, about 2004-2005, amounted to about 50,000 sites) contained sexually explicit material, most are information-based sites. And in these sites, the researchers have found that most of the remaining 87% that are censored contained political content that ran contrary to government interests and consisted of websites that showcased critiques of state heads in China. It is significant to note that Amnesty International, as well as the websites of US courts and higher institutions of learning such as MIT were among the sites blocked. Do these websites run counter to what the Chinese constitution wishes to protect which are state interest? This author holds that it does not. Their constitution is supposed to cover all the vital information or ‘state secrets’ that if put out, might endanger lives of its people. These are what ‘real protection of state interests’ is all about. But in this case, what the Chinese government has done is to askew that provision, state interests, to be equated to the interests of the corrupt Chinese oligarchy. And so even if the information, such as the Wikipedia article that reported the burning down of a facility in a Chinese town, and its highlighting of the factor that children were employed to the production of fireworks, contrary to law, is expressed in upholding the state interest in its essence- which is to protect its children, such a website that contained the said article is shut down, because it would put the Chinese officials involved in a bad light- that and not the former, is defined to be the state interest in this case which is beyond the breadth of what their Constitution covers.
Secondly, even if China’s local laws on that matter is considered as valid, China cannot invoke them to their favor, to subvert International laws, such as that of the right to freedom of expression and access to information.
China, as Republic of China, was one of the founding members of the United Nations which was born in 1945. In 1971, its seats in various organs of the UN were replaced by the People’s Republic of China. As a member then, it follows that when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations) China, being a party and member of said organization, accepted the rights and obligations declared in the said Charter, that are internationally recognized as generally practiced by all nations, wherein everyone considers themselves legally bound. That includes Article 19 of the said declaration which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” This media includes the Internet, as a universally recognized type of media.
Such must be upheld, regardless of Chinese nationalist policies. China, having been a member of the United Nations and having accepted it, must respect and uphold the UN Declaration of Human Rights, in such a way that it cannot invoke its national laws on that matter as defense to not doing so. This is hinged on the principle of pacta sunt servanda in the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties, it has already entered into an agreement with the international community, so in a sense, it is but proper for it to be estopped from availing of the valid defense of national sovereignty. But then, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, not being a treaty, China is not legally bound by it. To counter this, this Declaration may be referred to as reference and evidence of an existing customary international law, wherein China could still be held legally bound even without the presence of a treaty (US vs. Nicaragua). As stated, “Thus, for example, while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not in itself a binding treaty, some of its provisions have the character of customary international law.” (www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ABCannexesen.pdf)
The right to freedom of expression and access to information have already been considered as customary international law, upheld by all States, only codified in the aforesaid Declaration, hence, so as the same, China will still be legally bound by it.
Finally, there is the issue of the problem of jurisdiction in the Internet. It has been said that, “one major problem in enforcement is determining who has jurisdiction over the Internet, causing many bureaucratic turf battles within the PRC government, among various ministries, and between central and local officials. The State Council Information Office has the mandate to regulate the Internet, but other security agencies in mainland China have a say as well.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China)
Due to the nature of the Internet, not only linking peoples residing in one country, but the world at large, even the Chinese government itself is squabbling with one another on this issue. It has indeed brought about a confusion, a needless one, this author believes. For it is clear as day that the Internet’s nature being all-encompassing, does not limit jurisdiction over the Internet use in China within the said State only, for it also affects some rights and obligations of other states and the International community and sends a conflicting message to the international community as a whole with regard to this matter. Such must be taken into consideration in assessing China’s defending its move of institutionalizing internet filtering through lack of jurisdiction.
FINAL WORD
History has shown how upholding the right to access to information and its twin, freedom of expression, has combated the existence and flourishing of various tyrannies and dictatorships, as well as their by-products- mainly, the abuses to people and denigration of lives.
In this day and age of information and technology, there emerges a new form of dictatorship: Internet dictatorship, that is. What is scary about it, is not only that it exists, with the filtering done surreptitiously, in some cases, some people would not even know that such is present. Furthermore, even the business sector and the people themselves, are aiding the flourishing of such tyranny with a threat of an invisible gun on their heads.
This must stop. How so? The above-mentioned rights must be fought for just the same to protect states against tyrannies and dictatorships as was effectively done in the past. And to be successful in accomplishing such goal, the international community must come together to formulate and execute plans to this end. This must not just be lip service.
SOURCES:
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Case: US vs. Nicaragua
Internet Sources:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
http://opennet.net/studies/china
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_control_of_the_media_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ABCannexesen.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment