In an interview with DW, Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues that Google's 'pro-active' approach to the censorship of the controversial \"Innocence of Muslims\" video sets a dangerous precedent.<\/p>\n
DW: Do you think the \"Innocence of Muslims\" video should be banned by Google? <\/p>\n
Eva Galperin: I most certainly do not think that the video should be banned, either in the United States or in Egypt and in Libya were Google chose to ban it in spite of the fact that they acknowledged that it was consistent with their terms of service and they had not received any court orders. <\/p>\n
Do you believe in free speech at any cost? <\/p>\n
I believe in free speech within the limits of US law, which is not completely unadulterated free speech. And furthermore, I do acknowledge that Google does have to obey the law in countries where it receives a valid court order, such as countries where it has offices and is therefore under that country's jurisdiction. I do think that's one of the reasons why Google needs to be extremely circumspect about where they have their offices, because if they want to maintain their devotion to freedom of expression, they need to understand that when they move into other countries where freedom of expression is not as strongly supported, they may have to make these kinds of compromises when they receive court orders in countries like India and possibly Malaysia. <\/p>\n
Some critics are calling for a concrete, transnational system of internet governance. Would you approve of such an idea? <\/p>\n
Free speech, but not at any cost: Eva Galperin <\/p>\n
Worldwide internet governance is highly problematic. Partially because of the clashes between various countries right to autonomy and their right to decide what kind of content is allowed in each country. But also because the US frequently uses these kinds of worldwide treaties or agreements in order to push through its own intellectual property agenda which can often lead to widespread censorship, which we are very concerned about, which we saw with ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement], and also what you saw domestically in the United States their attempt to pass SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act]. <\/p>\n
Do you think Obama's condemnation of the video can be read as an attack on free speech? <\/p>\n
No I don't. I think that the White House has been fairly clear in its support of freedom of speech, while at the same time condemning the violence. There is nothing about condemning the violence that necessitates the censorship of this video. I think that by condemning the violence without calling for the censorship of this video, the White House is making it clear that they are putting the blame where it belongs - on the perpetrators of the violence. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Continued here: In an interview with DW, Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues that Google's 'pro-active' approach to the censorship of the controversial \"Innocence of Muslims\" video sets a dangerous precedent. DW: Do you think the \"Innocence of Muslims\" video should be banned by Google Continue reading
\n'US administration has put blame where it belongs'<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"