Medical order celebrex no rx News Today has made every effort to make certain that cheapest flovent all information is factually correct, comprehensive, and up to date. buy nexium cheap People experiencing kidney failure have kidneys that are not functioning acomplia rx well enough to sustain their body and filter their blood. discount clozapine You should always consult your doctor or another healthcare professional discount metronidazole gel before taking any medication. The areca nut is an ingredient acomplia online cheap in betel quid, which the article authors suggest is responsible buy free viagra best price jelly for around half of Taiwan's reported oral cancer cases. People buy triamterene online should seek immediate medical attention if there is blood underneath buy cialis low price the nail or the nail is becoming detached. Oral thrush buy cheap erythromycin online is common with HIV, as a weakened immune system makes buying viagra it more difficult to fight off infections. Treatment will depend on.

One of the most serious problems facing the Internet is that the free flow of information it permits is blocked by a variety of national regulations and laws. We give several examples in Blown to Bits: Google’s concession to Chinese demands that its search engine not return certain results, and the judgment of an Australian court that Barron’s had libeled an Australian businessman by Web publishing, in New Jersey, something that was perfectly legal in the U.S.

Now a joint effort by several Internet companies and nonprofits including the Berkman Center as resulted in a set of principles about how to deal with censorship and privacy violations demanded by national governments. (New York Times story, Wall Street Journal story and related blog. I can’t find the actual text of the agreement anywhere.)

The rules apparently will not cause any immediate drastic changes — we can be confident that Google will still be in China a year from now — and for that reason have drawn criticism from some human rights groups. But this is a very tough issue, and something is better than nothing. Essentially what we have here is a parallel to the anti-apartheid Sullivan Principles for companies doing business in South Africa. (Probably less onerous on the companies than the Sullivan Principles, actually.) There was always dispute about whether the Sullivan Principles went far enough and whether they played a significant role in bringing about change, but I think there is no doubt that they raised global awareness, and that alone would be a step forward for the Internet privacy and free-speech issues.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am and is filed under Censorship and free speech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.