24 January 2006

Internet Freedom of Speech Must Be Preserved, Says U.S. Scholar

Cato Institute's Jim Harper answers questions during January 24 webchat

By Tim Receveur
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- It is critically important that governments and citizens remain committed to the free flow of information on the Internet even if the ideas presented are unpopular or controversial, said Jim Harper of the Cato Institute in Washington during a webchat January 24.

“The Internet is a very powerful, open communication tool. Much more good comes from it than bad, and it is important to preserve the good, the freedom that it gives to so many people,” Harper said. “For that reason, I am very suspicious of rules that would tell people what they can and cannot say on the Internet.”

Harper is director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, which he described as a research organization “that focuses on the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace.” He is also a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

“I believe we should accord people the maximum amount of room to communicate, collaborate, and trade on the Internet,” Harper said. “A simple rule should apply: People should be able to do whatever they want to so long as they do not harm others.”

People should be punished “after the fact if they have done wrong,” rather than being censored, he said.  This helps prevent the abuse of power by the government against political opponents or human-rights advocates, he said.

Law enforcement and national security authorities should be able to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists or organized criminals to “collect evidence that will be used to stop them and punish them,” Harper said.  “The important thing is to have an independent check on this power. In the U.S., we almost always require approval of a court before law enforcement can monitor communications.”

Asked about the availability of hate speech online, Harper said, “If a person or group preaches hate for another group, they should be exposed and criticized, rather than told to be silent.

“Believers in free speech are willing to accept bad speech in order to protect all the good speech that happens,” he said.

Most speech, however hateful, is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures, Harper said. 

However, “if a person is reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activities and planning, his or her claim to privacy goes away in favor of security and law enforcement,” he said.   “I don't believe, however, that this should be done by just one branch of government. We have a system where the executive branch almost always has to ask the judicial branch if it is all right to go forward with an investigation.”

Harper expressed concern about corporations divulging online records to governments.

“The government should not be able to dip into private databases whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. If you allow that, they will collect more and more data. Before long, the private sector will just be an arm of the government,” he said.

It is also dangerous to free speech when governments are the owners of the telecommunications systems, Harper said. “This puts them in a position to monitor and control what people in their country are saying … and it creates power that government officials can abuse.”

“One important thing is to have many different communications systems that are not owned by the government,” he said.

More information on Harper’s writings and on Harper himself is available on the Cato Institute Web site.

To review Harper’s remarks in their entirety, see the IIP Webchat transcript.