Larsson läser
Janerik Larsson
Janerik Larsson
New York Times har idag en skarpt formulerad ledare som kritiserar politiker och byråkrater i EU för att hjälpa censursökande makthavare världen runt genom att söka tvinga Google att avlägsna sådan information från google.com som någon potentat kan anse otillbörlig.
I själva verket torde denna EU-ansats vara en del i den handelspolitiska offensiv från vänsterkrafter i Europa lierade med näringslivsintressen som besväras av amerikanska företagsframgångar. Till måltavlorna hör inte bara Google utan även t ex ambitionen att sluta ett handelsavtal mellan USA och EU.
The European position is deeply troubling because it could lead to censorship by public officials who want to whitewash the past. It also sets a terrible example for officials in other countries who might also want to demand that Internet companies remove links they don’t like. For example, the military government of Thailand could decide that it wants Facebook and Twitter to remove content that runs afoul of that country’s strict lèse-majesté law everywhere in the world. Autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey might feel emboldened to try to silence critics not just in their own countries but elsewhere by levying fines on Internet businesses or blocking their websites entirely.
European officials argue that it is unfair to liken the right to be forgotten to attempts to muzzle free speech in other countries. After all, the European Union is trying to protect the privacy of individuals, not squelch public debate. But if European regulators get their way, Internet companies would be left in the awkward position of determining when government requests to censor information universally are legitimate and when it is not. No business should have that power.
Countries have different standards for acceptable speech and for invasions of privacy. American libel laws, for example, are much more permissive than those in Britain. That’s why authors sometimes find it easier to have some books published in United States than in Britain. There is no doubt that the Internet has made it harder for governments to enforce certain rules and laws because information is not easily contained within borders. But that does not justify restricting the information available to citizens of other countries.