In a remarkably short space of time the internet has become one of the most powerful mediums in history. In the early days of the internet, ‘digital utopians’ hailed the dawn of a new age, where ideas and goods could be exchanged freely [Ref: Hache]. But in recent times there has also been much talk about the ‘dark side of utopia’ and the potential of the internet to cause harm.  In 2009 the Iranian government faced criticism for clamping down on social media’s use in post-election protests [Ref: Reuters] and, in January 2010, revelations that Google had suffered a ‘sophisticated’ cyber attack originating from China [Ref: BBC News] sparked condemnation across the globe. Furthermore, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech a few days later in defence of online freedom and called on China to lift restrictions on the internet, many celebrated the robust responses from Google and Clinton as a victory for free speech. But debate about online freedom isn’t limited to Iran and China. Following the publication of the Byron Review in 2008 [Ref: DCFS], and the subsequent report from the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport [Ref: Parliament.co.uk], the UK government is now pressing for regulation to protect children from harmful material on the net. Highlighting the increased use of the internet to promote and plan acts of terrorism, home secretary Jacqui Smith also stated that the ‘internet can’t be a no-go area for government’ [Ref:Guardian]. Britain’s own rules on internet censorship came under sharp scrutiny recently when the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) blocked pages on Wikipedia relating to a 1970s album cover featuring a picture of a naked girl [Ref: The Register]. This comes on top of revelations that anti-terror powers to intercept personal communication, which had been extended to over 800 bodies by a 2003 amendment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 [Ref: Home Office], had been used to monitor everything from animal rights campaigners to school catchment areas [Ref: Daily Telegraph]. A number of commentators have raised concern about the ease with which such unaccountable bodies could be able to impose censorship on web users, and the sophistication of the ‘architecture for censorship’ in the UK.

Who controls the internet?
The fact that the internet is not controlled by any single authority means that global regulation of the internet is both complex and evolving. As the organisation that technically administers the net it is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that underpins the degree to which it can be regulated. However, with the huge global growth in internet users, decisions about regulation are also increasingly in the hands of internet service providers (ISPs) [Ref: New York Times], search machines and companies such as Google. Governments are also clamouring for influence. In the UK this has been seen most recently in the furore around New Labours much criticised ‘Intercept Modernisation Programme’ [Ref: LSE], a proposal to introduce legislation allowing government to access data from all electronic communication made by the public. Whilst government censorship in countries such as China has been criticised in the Western press, many other countries have also banned certain website content [Ref: Electronic Frontiers Australia].  In the UK the only websites that ISPs are expected to block are those that the IWF has reported as containing images of child pornography, but the Home Office is considering access to articles on the web deemed to be ‘glorifying terrorism’ [Ref: Guardian]. But whilst many feel that such concessions are a small price to pay for greater security, others vehemently disagree and retort that we must remain idealist about the freedom the internet presents us with. “The exchange of thoughts and items that profoundly offend your sensibilities”, says one commentator “is a necessary (and relatively small) price to pay for the greatest communications medium in human history.”

Does the internet cause harm?
Although Byron and others suggest that we should be wary of moral panics [Ref: mediaknowall], they also state that the protection of children from online dangers cannot wait for evidence of causal links. It should be based instead on probability of ‘risk’. Concerns about the spread of terrorism – particularly given the internet’s use in planning terrorist attacks such as those in Mumbai in 2008 [Ref: WebUser] - and incitement to racial or religious hatred have also caused some to call for the banning of certain groups’ websites [Ref: Centre for Social Cohesion]. In particular, suggestions that many linked to extremist organisations have been ‘groomed’ over the internet have increased calls for regulation. But critics are sceptical of the claim that people absorb ideas like ‘mindless sponges’. They argue that ideas on the internet don’t transform people on their own, but that we all actively engage with content according to previously developed models of the world we have internalised. Instead of looking at the internet as determining our actions, they argue we should understand the web as a reflection of society – problems in society will not be solved by taking down a web page but by deliberations in the real world [Ref: Guardian].

The moral question
The debate about how we should respond to controversial sites returns to the question of how we weigh freedom of expression against other considerations. Proponents of regulation argue that an uncompromising commitment to freedom of expression blinds us to other moral imperatives. Writing on free speech rulings in the Unites States, theologian David Hart wonders how society has got to a point where it values the rights of pornographers above those of children. British journalist Yvonne Roberts argues that for the YouTube generation a bit of moralising is ‘desperately required’ if we are to avoid brutalising young people. But others have questioned the need for unelected councils, such as the recently launched UK Council for Child Internet Safety, to decide what children should be allowed to view. They argue that it is the unregulated nature of the internet that encourages us to behave like adults in deciding what we and our children should and shouldn’t view. Defenders of free expression on the internet underline the argument that a key principle of democracy is that unfettered information facilitates public enlightenment and a universal exchange of ideas. One recent and widely lauded instance of internet freedom occurred when an attempt to ban reporting of parliamentary questions on the investigation of Trafigura was publicised widely in the unregulated and instantaneous world of the blogosphere, causing law firm Carter Ruck to back down and provoking fierce debate on UK libel law [Ref: Guardian]. As the most powerful information medium in the modern world, our attitudes to regulation of the internet are a testing ground for our commitment to free speech [Ref: Spiked].