Searching for Free Speech

A recent Harvard Law School report by Berkman Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies Jonathan L. Zittrain has found that the French and German versions of Google, the Internet’s most popular search engine, have been filtering more than 100 controversial websites from their searches. Without being warned of it, many Google users have been blocked from various far right-wing and anti-semitic pages—some of which the two governments have deemed illegal under various post-World War II censorship laws.

Though lawsuits have been filed in the past over such statutes—two years ago Yahoo! was sued by French groups over auction pages it hosted selling Nazi paraphernalia—this is the first indication of preemptive action taken by an American company to avoid such foreign legal troubles. Though well-intentioned, both the laws and Google’s reaction to them are deeply unsettling.

The principle of free speech, while it has limits, must be given first priority. It is alarming to see modern-day democratic states endorsing such blanket censorship. Instead of eliminating hateful speech, censorship merely drives it underground where finding and refuting it becomes impossible. The multinational nature of the Internet means that censorship cannot be applied selectively; French law will inevitably affect what American Francophiles can see. Quebecois who use google.fr are now being prevented from accessing websites that are perfectly legitimate under their local laws.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute, all-encompassing value; people should not be permitted to incite harm against specific individuals—for example, by listing the names and addresses of doctors who practice abortions. Yet it sets a dangerous precedent for a government to declare various forms of speech and thought illegal, even as it undermines a republic’s trust in its citizens to make informed decisions.

Fortunately, the Internet renders such restrictions especially ineffective. Conducting an uninhibited search is as easy as switching over to Google’s English-language site, which abides only by American law.

It is understandable that Google has an interest, as a business, in protecting itself from lawsuits. Yet taking the easy way out and quietly letting governments restrict what the service’s users can see and hear fundamentally undermines the values of democracy even as it invites future abuse and interference. It is frightening to see the silence with which the web portal has caved to such pressure. Even as it protects its bottom line, Google could fight these restrictions. For instance, when results are not displayed because of the censorship, Google could warn users that the results of their searches are being restricted by French and German law.

The Internet can empower millions through knowledge, but one only needs to look at China to see the potential for a governmnent to abuse the web’s power. We applaud the efforts of academics like Zittrain to search out these infringements and fight for the freedom of speech.