01Oct12 <\/p>\n
This letter appeared in the Financial Times <\/p>\n
Sir,Your editorial (Obamas realist foreign policy, September 27) claims that free speech purists were offended by Barack Obamas comments onInnocence of Muslims. As an organisation that defends free expression around the world, Index on Censorship would certainly include itself in the free speech purist camp. Even the president of the US is entitled to say what he likes under the first amendment, as long as he upholds thatvitalpart of the US constitution for all. <\/p>\n
In his address this week to world leaders at the UN General Assembly, President Obama defended the right of all people to express their views even views that we disagree with. <\/p>\n
However, in reality, the White House is guilty of reaching out toGoogleto look into taking the video off YouTube on the grounds that it breached Googles terms of service, justifying its removal. This intervention by the US government suggests censorship by stealth, whereby governments can claim to protect free speech while putting pressure on middle men such as internet service providers to censor for them. All of which raises the question: Who should control the internet? <\/p>\n
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship, London EC1, UK <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Excerpt from: 01Oct12 This letter appeared in the Financial Times Sir,Your editorial (Obamas realist foreign policy, September 27) claims that free speech purists were offended by Barack Obamas comments onInnocence of Muslims. As an organisation that defends free expression around the world, Index on Censorship would certainly include itself in the free speech purist camp Continue reading
\nLetter: White House guilty of censorship by stealth in seeking YouTube removal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"