(This post is a result of my participation in the South Asia Meeting on the Freedom of Expression and the Internet in Kathmandu, 2-4 November. This is my personal opinion but I owe to participants of the meeting whose comments may have helped me to shape this.)
By Internet intermediaries, I mean those companies or people who has a role in providing internet services to the people including, but not limited to, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), webhosts, web service providers, website owners, and also cyber cafes and telecommunication companies.
The Complexity Due to Internet
The Internet is all about integration – the mash-up of things that seemed to have been distinctly apart. The advent of the network of networks has brought together not only text, pictures, video, audio and interaction together, but has also forced to go beyond traditional boundary on every aspect it touches.
Since it has become the largest tool to exercise the freedom of opinion and expression – a fundamental human right – the role of many traditional stakeholders have been redefined whereas many new stakeholders appeared in the scene. Mass media is one of the industries that are bewildered.
Internet intermediaries, mostly private or public profit-making business entities, are the one finding themselves in the middle of the human rights activists and civil societies discussing the topics almost alien to private businesses such as human rights, freedom of expression and social responsibility.
Mass media, human rights organizations and civil society were traditionally the one advocating and fighting for human rights including freedom of expression. Now the Internet is considered the medium of free flow of information, and even recommended making a human right, all those private intermediary are in the fray of the human rights facilitator.
And, It’s Not Easy
For Internet intermediary, it’s not easy to be all of the sudden the facilitator of human rights. This is primarily because they lack the knowledge, experiences and support to perform the responsibility.
For private business organizations, knowledge of why need to facilitate the human rights is relatively new concept; and in absence of historical practices, they lack the experiences that of media organizations, trade unions and human rights organizations.
The biggest lacking however is the support from other organizations – such as media.
On April 10, 2011, Internet Service Providers’ Association of Nepal (ISPAN) closed down the Internet for an hour to protest against the unnecessary harassment from authorities in the case of illegal VoIP. Most of those who decided that probably never understood that closing down Internet is different than closing down offices or businesses in protest.
The media, on the other hand, never tried to understand that the harassment they were subjected to could lead to greater problem regarding Internet access in future and portrayed them negatively for denying Internet access.
Such incidents have left them and other human rights facilitating/defending organizations on two sides of a river – a case which is undesirable in the new landscape of freedom of expression created due to the Internet.
No Liability
The Internet intermediaries cannot be held liable for the third-party content or third-party action by the use of the Internet unless they own the content and/or knowingly let the illegal action happen.
ISPs are not liable for illegal VoIP unless they are involved. Webhosts, the companies that sell server space for website owners to put up their content, are not liable for the content uploaded by the client.
Web service providers – for me that include sites like search engines and sites like Facebook which give personal space to users – should not be held liable for the content uploaded by the users.
But I believe that website owners, the people who actually owns website that doesn’t allow users to have their own password protected personal space and administrating rights of their personal space, should be partly liable for the content on their sites. This is because on such websites, the owners are the only one with the administrating rights.
Way Forward
Certainly, the Internet intermediaries are new players on human rights. They should understand that they are not just another business; and that they have a crucial social role to play besides making profits.
The traditional human rights facilitating and defending organizations should unite with them on basic principles to provide them support to ensure that they do not crumble under pressure from authorities in the issues where freedom of expression and rights to know may be compromised.
