Banning or restricting the use of social media networks is a tool of dictatorial regimes, and British Prime Minister David Cameron sends the wrong message by announcing his government is considering it.
He sends the wrong message to Arab regimes that wish to disrupt democracy protests. He sends the wrong message to China, which places heavy restrictions on the Internet.
And he sends the wrong message to his own people. It is panicky and facile, and if adopted would undermine freedoms the country has helped contribute, over centuries, to the world.
It may be true that social media networks, whether BlackBerry Messenger, Twitter or Facebook, played a role in spreading word among those who were looking for an invitation to a riot. In previous generations, a poster on a telephone pole might have served that function. No democratic country instituted a ban on posters. For that matter, the printing press itself has been implicated in some horrible incitements over the centuries. Shutting down the presses is not an answer – not in democratic societies.
Yes, the riots are bad. But there is no insurrection, no attack by foreign armies, no terrorism. No extraordinary threat that requires the curtailment of basic liberties in a country whose commerce, form of government and civic life depend on those liberties.
Mr. Cameron did not say he was considering an outright ban. He said the government is talking with police and intelligence services “to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.” The notion that a ban could be restricted to a small group of known plotters verges on the fanciful. If government truly does know who is plotting violence and when it might occur, more traditional policing techniques should be enough to stop that violence in its tracks.
“Free flow of information can be used for good,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament on Thursday. “But it can also be used for ill.” The sentiment is true enough, but as a pretext for Draconian government action, it belongs in the authoritarian world. The free flow of information is a democracy’s lifeblood, and it needs protection, too.
