U.N. Internet Regulation?

There is some growing opinion on the convening of a U.N. conference in Tunisia these week dealing with the possible U.N. Regulation of the internet.

This is a dnagerous developement. It is bad enough that Congress is asking the FEC to regulate political speech by bloggers in the United States. We certainly don't need the U.N., that bastion of effectiveness, having anything to do with internet regulations.

The Democracy Project writes:

Yesterday’s London Times quotes me, with respect to the effort to place control of the Internet under U.N. control:

"This issue, this outrageous putsch attempt, deserves an uproar heard around the world on the internet," wrote blogger Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project. He criticized the EU for its ties to "such stalwarts of smothering internet freedom as China, Cuba, Iran."

The London Times also quotes two leftist bloggers, one calling this "the US conservative spin machine turning this into a battle between the democracy-loving US Government protecting the internet from censorship from the dictators and thugs who run the UN," and another, the leading leftist blogger Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos, saying, the U.S." "international belligerence" undermines the world’s faith that the U.S. should regulate a "global medium." The U.S., unmentioned, has not regulated, but invested in and maintained a completely open forum, anathema to tyrants and those who travel alongside.

The internet is the one place where people who value freedom of thought and expression can go with impunity, particularly if they are not fortunately enough to live in a place that protects such speech. Placing it under U.N. control is just plain dangerous.

From the Cato Institute:

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

Non-regulation is best, according to Cato, which follows its libertariant bent, but since that is not likely to happen,

the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

Cato closes with:

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Truer words never spoken.