Freedom of Speech

New research from Piper Jaffray suggests that Google actually may have increased its censorship by ~30% in China since Google grand-standed on the world stage in January pledging that it would no longer censor search results on China.cn.  

Per Business Week's Blog, Piper Jaffrey' analyst Gene Munster: 

It appears Google impetuously over-reacted to the big cyber-security breach of Google and a reported ~30 other companies. Google alone publicly blamed China and only Google publicly pledged to stop censoring search results in China in retaliation.    

What is the evidence that Google impetuously over-reacted here?

First, Forbes reported: "Researchers Call Google Hackers 'Amateurs' -- A new report says the attack on the search giants network was far less sophisticated than it has claimed." Specifically:

• "A great play is being made about how sophisticated these attacks were," says Damballa's vice president of research Gunter Ollman. "But tracing back the attacks shows that they were not sophisticated, and that the attackers behind them have a history of running multiple botnets with a variety of tools and techniques," many of which, he says, were far more rudimentary than Google or the cybersecurity industry has portrayed."

People incorrectly assume that because of Google's popularity, brand and reputation for innovation, that Google is  secure and cutting edge on cyber-security -- when in reality they are not.

GoogleMonitor.com

For Immediate Release

February 22, 2010

Contact: Scott Cleland

703-217-2407

Media@GoogleMonitor.com

Will Google Stop Censoring Search Results in China per its Pledge?

GoogleMonitor.com Announces Google China Censorship Pledge Accountability Ticker

Kudos to Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity for their spot-on report of quotes from FreePress that exposes what FreePress is really all about.

Their report shows, in FreePress' own words, that they are a dystopian nightmare masquerading as a public interest group protecting freedom of the press.

The Media and Democracy Coalition, the leading advocates for the FCC to effectively take over management of the Internet and the American broadband industry are gathering on Capitol Hill 11 am Wednesday (Rayburn 2123) to present their policy recommendations to the FCC for a "Bold Practical National Broadband Plan." 

Here are some questions the panelists should be asked:

January 27, 2010

For Immediate Release

Contact: Scott Cleland

703-217-2407

Media@GoogleMonitor.com

GoogleMonitor.com Launches Today

Will spotlight Google’s lack of transparency and accountability

Unfortunately FreePress long ago chose to be the gutter's beacon of low-road politics and not a shining beacon of high-road politics to emulate.

FreePress was unfortunately disingenuous in its Hill op-ed today, in saying "When is comes to Internet freedom, the United States of America can be a beacon to the rest of the world. But we must start at home."

If FreePress was genuine in believing that it is truly important to have a shining beacon of positive example for others to follow... why does FreePress not lead by example itself, and let its behavior and tactics in public discourse be a positive beacon for everyone else to follow?

It is tragic and ironic that right after FreePress said its high-minded rhetoric of being "a beacon to the world," FreePress immediately dove into the gutter and proceeded to try and assasinate the character of an honorable thoughtful professional, Andrew Keen, exercising his free speech rights that FreePress claims to support, and demonize companies that also are standing up for their own consitutional rights of free speech and freedom from seizure of their property without just compensation. (Andrew Keen's book "Cult of the Amateur" is an Internet classic and a must-read, and was a strong precursor of the Internet's dark side way before anyone else connected the dots.)   

Please don't miss Andrew Keen's outstanding and dead-on-point op-ed in The Hill: "Internet Freedoms and Internet Radicals." 

Mr. Keen brilliantly proves how radical and out of the mainstream FreePress' and Public Knowledge's views are in calling for radical, preemptive, and draconian regulation of competitive broadband companies that have long supported, and operate under, the high-consensus voluntary principles of net neutrality. 

FreePress has one  trick, demonization. Like anything else that is overused, abused, and not true -- it loses credibility and only reflects badly on those practicing it. 

Kudos to Randy May of the Free State Foundation for his outstanding op-ed in the Washington Times today: "Voiding the Constitution: FCC rules could counter free speech."

• Randy's must read piece explains why net neutrality rules would perversely accomplish the exact opposite of what net neutrality proponents claim.

At core net neutrality proponents are trying to advance the preposterous notion that competitive broadband companies, the biggest enablers of free speech in the country, are somehow more of a threat to Americans' free speech than the Federal Government, which, unlike broadband companies, has extensive potential coercive power to limit free speech, if not for the constraint of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.    

The foundation of American Democracy for over 200 years has been respect for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. The advent of the mainstream Internet in the 1990's created a new and exceptional medium for free expression, much as telephone, radio, movies, TV, faxes, dial-up, email, texting, etc. have created new technological mediums for free expression.

• The argument that the Government must regulate broadband providers in order to preserve 200 year-old First Amendment rights is disingenuous, duplicitous, and dystopian.  

Current justifications for new net neutrality regulations to implement a "21st Century First Amendment" via three votes by un-elected FCC commissioners as net neutrality proponents like Marvin Ammori advocate, could not be a more radical assault on America's real institutions of democracy. 

 If net neutrality supporters really cared about   advancing American Constitutional Democracy, they would respect that the U.S. Constitution is designed to prevent Government tyranny of the people by creating powerful institutional checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, and definitive processes to change laws or amend the Constitution.