Sex Hysteria!

In the last couple weeks we have seen a stunning reversal of attitudes in the U.S. government on the issue of freedom of expression on the internet.  Government officials who have, in the past year, been righteously chastising China and Iran for their attacks on free speech turned on their heels and immediately joined the crusade to “use all the resources of the United States government” to suppress the publication, by Wikileaks, of cables embarrassing to the U.S. government.

As is often the case, First Amendment questions were immediately raised, but the government is discovering a new powerful way to sidestep First Amendment restrictions and due process.   What used to require the complicated process involving lawyers and courts can now be accomplished with a simple intimidating phone call.

From the Guardian:

Amazon is the most interesting case. It provides so-called “cloud computing services” by renting out some of the thousands of computers used to run its online store. WikiLeaks moved its site on to Amazon’s cloud to ensure that it would not be crippled by the denial-of-service attacks that had brought other ISPs to their knees. But then the company received a call from senator Joseph Lieberman, the kind of politician who gives loose cannons a bad name, who had been frothing about WikiLeaks being “implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security”. Some time after that, Amazon terminated WikiLeaks’s account.

Lieberman then declared: “I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”

While the government would ordinarily face insurmountable legal obstacles in suppressing protected speech or expression at the source, they now have the option of shutting down the distribution of that expression using implied threats and intimidation.    Given that the entire internet distribution network is privately owned by corporations extremely sensitive to such governmental pressure, the First Amendment is  irrelevant.

But, in a way, that’s the least worrying aspect of Amazon’s behaviour. More troubling is what its actions portend for democracy. Rebecca MacKinnon, a scholar who has written incisively about China’s efforts to censor the net, wrote a sobering essay about this last week. “A substantial, if not critical amount of our political discourse,” she points out, “has moved into the digital realm. This realm is largely made up of virtual spaces that are created, owned and operated by the private sector.”

As far as the law of contract is concerned, Amazon can do what it likes. But this isn’t just about contracts any more. “While Amazon was within its legal rights,” MacKinnon warns, “the company has nonetheless sent a clear signal to its users: if you engage in controversial speech that some individual members of the US government don’t like… Amazon is going to dump you at the first sign of trouble.”

That Joe Lieberman sees the Constitution and due process as mere annoyances is not unusual.  Congress is largely staffed with that mentality.  What sets Lieberman apart is that he single-handedly invented and tested the mechanism which will eliminate First Amendment protections on the internet from this point forward.   So, who did more damage to the United States?  Julian Assange when he leaked cables that embarrassed the government?  Or Joe Lieberman when he eliminated free speech protections from the internet?

Who will be Lieberman’s next target?  Maybe the New York Times.

Of course, you still have the right of free speech.  Joe just gets to choose whether anyone will hear you.