The Rise of Cyber Borders: Establishing National Boundaries in Cyberspace

Abstract

The borderless nature of cyberspace has been challenged by the establishment of national regulations to govern cyberspace within the state boundaries. States, influenced by their cultures and societal norms, are increasingly attempting to extend their laws and values into their cyber domains. The area of interest in this discussion will be freedom of expression within cyberspace. This paper, (I) introduces the concept of state regulations on freedom of expression in cyberspace, (II) examines regulation of human rights with a focus on hate speech in cyber domain, (III) explores regulation of online political and (IV) religious expression, and (V) concludes with some observations on the regulation of freedom of expression in cyberspace.

The Rise of Cyber

Borders: Establishing

National Boundaries

in Cyberspace

Lela G. Jgerenaia December 17, 2012 Prof. Nazli Choucri Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction. .......................................................................... 2

II. Human Rights: Hate Speech ................................................. 2

III. Politics ................................................................................... 6

IV. Religion ............................................................................... 10

V. Conclusion ........................................................................... 12

Bibliography ................................................................................. 13

2

I. Introduction

Originally, when cyberspace was created, it was an interconnected, global arena

lacking distinct boundaries. However, the inherently global nature of cyberspace is

slowly dissolving, giving way to regulations along state borders. Nations are establishing

their cyber borders through methods including regulation of e-commerce, censorship of

online information, and moral policing in cyberspace among others. This paper will

examine online freedom of expression within state cyber borders, and show that the

regulation of these borders is strongly influenced by cultural norms. Increasing national

regulation of cyberspace is occurring regardless of the system of governance. This paper

will analyze examples of the regulation of freedom of expression in three areas: human

rights, politics, and religion. States were latecomers in establishing their presence on the

Internet, which was predominantly populated by commercial entities. However, states

are strengthening their influence and presence in cyberspace through regulation.

Increasing regulations, which form cyber borders, result in cyberspace beginning to

resemble the traditional international relations system of nation-states.

II. Human Rights: Hate Speech

In the European Union, the values and norms concerning human rights are clearly

reflected in their legislation. Following the devastation and destruction wrought by

WWII, Europe became aware of the importance of protecting human rights, and member

states cooperated to create organizations and legislative bodies to protect these rights.

The European Union is home to the Council of Europe, the European Commission of

Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, among the largest and most

influential human rights entities in the world. Hate speech is a topic of concern to these

entities and a substantial amount of legislation, recommendations and protocols have

been issued to regulate this category of speech.1 A significant number of EU member

states including Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, Switzerland,

Portugal and Romania among others, have laws which criminalize speech or expression

1 William Saletan, Hate-Speech Hypocrites: How can we ban hate speech against Jews while defending mockery

of Muslims? Slate, Edited Sept. 28, 2012, accessed Dec. 14, 2012.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/free_speech_vs_hate_speech_why_is_it

_legal_to_insult_muslims_but_not_jews_.single.html.

3

meant to insult, degrade, and promote hatred or racism towards groups of people based

on race, ethnicity, religion or belief.2

In 1993, the Council of Europe issued a Declaration and Plan of Action on

Combating Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Intolerance.3

This declaration

resulted in the establishment of the European Commission against Racism and

Intolerance (ECRI) which was charged with reviewing the legislation and policies of EU

member states and making recommendations on this matter.4 The commission found the

Internet to be a particularly concerning area of increasing hate speech and recommended

that the Council of Europe include a prohibition on hate speech in the 2001 Convention

on Cybercrime.5 The suppression of hate speech was addressed in an additional Protocol

to the Convention on Cybercrime, which called on member states to adopt legislation and

measures that would criminalize the intentional distribution of racist or xenophobic

material to the public, as well as the threatening and insulting of persons and groups

based on their race, color, ethnicity, or religion through a computer system. The Protocol

defines racist and xenophobic material as "written material, images or other

representations of ideas or theories advocating, promoting or inciting hatred,

discrimination or violence against individuals or groups, based on race, color, descent, or

national or ethnic origin, or religion."6 Currently, thirty member states have signed the

additional Protocol and six of those have ratified it.7

The legislation and regulation of online hate speech in European states is

examined in several examples. In League against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA),

2 Saletan, Hate-Speech Hypocrites: How can we ban hate speech against Jews while defending mockery of

Muslims? 3 Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers, Vienna Declaration, Vienna, 9 October 1993, accessed Dec.

14, 2012. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=621771. 4 Council of Europe (CoE), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), On Combating

Racism, Xenophobia, Antisemitism and Intolerance, ECRI General Policy Recommendation №1, Adopted by

ECRI on 4 Oct. 1996.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/gpr/en/recommendation_n1/Rec01en.pdf. 5 Christopher D. Van Blarcum, Internet Hate Speech: The European Framework and the Emerging American

Haven, accessed Dec. 15, 2012, pg.791. http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/62-2VanBlarcum.pdf. 6 Council of Europe (CoE), Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the

criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, Strasbourg,

28.I.2003, accessed Dec. 12, 2012, Chapter II. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm. 7 Council of Europe (CoE), Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the

criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems CETS No.: 189,

edited Dec. 17, 2012, accessed Dec. 17, 2012.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=189&CM=4&DF=&CL=ENG.

4

French Union of Jewish Students, v. Yahoo! Inc., two French student organizations

alleged that Yahoo!, by making Nazi memorabilia available on its auction site in France,

was in violation of Article R. 645-1, which criminalizes the display of emblems of

organizations guilty of crimes against humanity. Yahoo! was found to be in violation of

Article R. 645-1 of the French Penal Code, despite the argument that the company and its

server are based in the U.S., where Nazi artifacts are protected by the First Amendment.

Yahoo! was ordered by the French court to prevent French access to the purchase of Nazi

items, through online IP address filtering and other online screening tools.8 Though this

case did not directly involve hate speech, it was a landmark case in establishing the rights

of the state to place limits on the freedom of expression in cyberspace within its own

borders.9

In 1999, a noted Australian Holocaust denier, Dr. Frederick Toben, was arrested

in Germany and served nine months in prison for violation of section 130 of the German

criminal code which criminalizes holocaust denial.10

The German lower court initially

found that he was guilty of distributing written material which offended the memory of

the dead, but his online Australian-based website that incited racial hatred did not violate

the law since his website was based in Australia and therefore not under the jurisdiction

of the German court. However, on appeal, the German Federal Court of Justice found

that his online website was indeed in violation of German law because the content was

accessible in Germany.11

This ruling demonstrates the application of German law within

the country’s borders regardless of the origin of the offensive Internet material.12

8 Juriscom.net, La Ligue Contre La Racisme et L’Antisemitisme (LICRA) and Union des Etudiants Juifs de

France (UEJF) v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France, edited Feb. 5, 2010, accessed Dec. 12, 2012.

http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/yauctions20000522.htm. 9 James Banks, European Regulation of Cross-Border Hate Speech in Cyberspace: The Limits of Legislation,

European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 19, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 2011, pg. 1-

13. http://www.academia.edu/1006708/Banks_J._2011_European_Regulation_of_Cross-

Border_Hate_Speech_in_Cyberspace_The_Limits_of_Legislation_European_Journal_of_Crime_Criminal_La

w_and_Criminal_Justice_19_1-13. 10

Cyber Law Blog, Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben wins German extradition fight, edited Nov. 21, 2008,

accessed Dec. 12, 2012. http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/21/holocaust-denier-fredrick-toben-wins-german-

extradition-fight-times-online/. 11

Steve Kettmann, German Hate Law: No Denying It, WIRED, edited Dec. 15, 2000, accessed Dec. 14, 2012.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669#ixzz0jTf5lnLh. 12

Christopher D. Van Blarcum, Internet Hate Speech: The European Framework and the Emerging American

Haven, Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 62, Issue 2, edited Mar. 1, 2005, accessed Dec. 15, 2012,

pg. 803-804. http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=wlulr.

5

Another method of European states controlling online hate speech is through

voluntary self-regulation. British and German Internet service providers (ISPs) have

formed industry organizations, which have voluntarily developed codes of conduct

prohibiting hate speech. In the UK, guidelines and rules of conduct for ISPs are clearly

established in the Code of Practice of the Internet Service Providers Association. ISPs

are required to use their best efforts to prevent the publishing and distribution of online

content promoting violence or racial hatred.13

Conversely, the freedom of speech

guaranteed under the First amendment in the United States has created a cyberspace safe

haven for websites containing hate speech and promoting racism. The Southern Poverty

Law Center, a U.S. based civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and

bigotry,14

recorded 1,018 hate groups operating in the United States in 2012, a doubling

over the last decade.15

Robert Badinter, a former French justice minister, reported that

over 2,500 out of 4,000 "racist sites"16

worldwide in 2002 were based in the United

States.17

In order to protect its citizens from harmful online content from websites

outside of its jurisdiction, Spain has taken a more direct approach. Spanish legislation

allows judges to shut down Spanish sites and block access to U.S. and other foreign

websites that are in violation of Spanish law.18

This is a legislatively pro-active approach

which allows the Spanish courts to determine which websites may be shuttered due to

content in breach of the law.

The approaches to addressing and limiting hate speech in the European Union

vary from voluntary self-regulation to explicit law. However, the trend towards the

regulation of online hate speech in accordance with state laws and cultural norms is

evident. This increasing regulation of online hate speech is more clearly defining cyber

13

The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA), Code of Practice, accessed Dec. 12, 2012.

http://www.ispa.org.uk/about-us/ispa-code-of-practice/. 14

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Who We Are: A Rich History, accessed Dec. 14, 2012.

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are. 15

Kim Severson, Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says, edited Mar. 7, 2012, accessed Dec. 14,

2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/number-of-us-hate-groups-on-the-rise-report-says.html?_r=0. 16

Tom Heneghan, U.S-French Gap Narrows Over Fighting Web Hate, OSCE conference in Paris on the

relationship between racist, xenophobic and antisemitic propaganda on the Internet and hate crimes, edited Jun

17, 2004, accessed Dec. 14, 2012. http://www.inach.net/content/osce-paris-pressarticles.html#U.S-

French%20Gap%20Narrows%20Over%20Fighting%20Web%20Hate. 17

Anita Ramasastry, Can Europe block racist Web sites from its borders? CNN Law Center, Find Law, edited

Feb. 6, 2003, accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/06/findlaw.analysis.ramasastry.cyberlaw/index.html. 18

Julia Scheeres, Europeans Outlaw Net Hate Speech, WIRED, edited Nov. 9, 2002, accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/11/56294.

6

borders between nations with more restrictions like EU member states, and nations with

fewer restrictions on hate speech like the United States. “Free Speech is never with

limits, but different societies draw these limits in different places.”19

III. Politics

Politics is another area where freedom of expression is regulated and controlled

by a number of states. In the discussion of the regulation of online political expression,

China is one of the most strictly regulated, monitored and controlled states. Government

legislation and regulation of political expression is extensively applied to cyberspace. The

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) focuses significant effort on the regulation of

cyberspace in order to enhance stability of the party’s rule and economic control. Since

the CCP itself came to power through a revolution of the masses, party leaders are aware

of the power of large-scale social unrest and the threat it could cause to the legitimacy of

the party. China’s history, values and culture provide useful insight into how and why

free speech is more tightly regulated in China, both in printed press and in cyberspace.20

Controlling speech has been part of Chinese society from the time it was created,

throughout most of the imperial dynasties and into the modern era. Except for very few

relatively liberal periods in Chinese history, questioning authority was perceived as a

threat to the central governing power and was strictly punished. “Silence is golden” was

an attitude people adopted over time which they taught their children too, to ensure that

they would not suffer because of their speech. Choosing silence is still a path many take

in China,21

despite the fact that Chinese people are guaranteed freedom of speech by their

current Constitution; yet the definition of freedom of speech is ambiguous. From the time

when the communist party took control of mainland China in 1949, they carefully

maintained their power and legitimized it through control of certain types of speech.22

Freedom of speech became less restricted starting from the 1970s, and spheres of public

19

Shirley Hung, A Different Vision of Openness: The Chinese Internet, Talk for Communications Futures

Program, edited May 25, 2011, accessed Dec. 12, 2012. 20

Hung, A Different Vision of Openness: The Chinese Internet, Talk for Communications Futures Program. 21

Kaiju Chen & Xinhong Zhang, Trial by media: overcorrection of the inadequacy of the right to free speech in

contemporary China, Critical Arts Projects and Unisa Press: 2011, pg. 47. 22

William Joseph, Politics of China, Lecture Notes, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, fall 2012.

7

interest became more open to discussion; yet political content continues to be highly

controlled.23

In 1994, when the Internet was first introduced, China’s primary use for

cyberspace was economic growth and even today the Internet is mainly focused on

economic prosperity.24

The number of Internet users in China is increasing, comprising

forty percent of its 1.34 billion population, according to a June 2012 estimate.25

To be

secure as a ruling party, the CCP has employed effective mechanisms that harness the

power of technical apparatuses, legislation, “self-censorship” and the human element.26

While this system has not been perfect, it has proven to be an impressive hybrid

apparatus to keep the party rule secure.27

As a result, China has the largest number of

imprisoned journalists and cyber dissidents in the world.28

Human policing of Internet content is an important aspect of the regulation of

political expression. The government alone employees more than 50,000 people for its

cyber police force, which does not include those monitors employed by private

companies like China’s Google or Twitter.29

Some of these employees just read and

review Internet content like individual webpages, blogs or profiles. It is believed that

Chinese Twitter alone employs over 1,000 people, who scour through more than a

million posts of articles, individual posts or any other published content every day.30

Public online forums are monitored carefully due to the potential for mass

communications among users. The government uses a special licensing system for online

forums, which is monitored and implemented by the Ministry of Industry and

Information Technology (MIIT).31

In addition to cyber policing, self-censorship is also used to restrict online

political expression. This is another effective form of regulation in China, since people

23

Chen & Zhang, Trial by media, pg. 49. 24

Shirley Hung, The Chinese Internet: Control Through the Layers, Explorations in Cyber International

Relations, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard University, October 30, 2012, pg. 4. 25

Internet World Stats, Internet Usage and Population Statistics, edited Nov. 18, 2012, accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm. 26

Hung, The Chinese Internet: Control Through the Layers, pg. 2. 27


Human Rights Watch, How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview, 2006 Report, accessed Dec. 15,

2012. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm. 29



Hung, The Chinese Internet: Control Through the Layers, pg. 16.

8

not only remain cautious about what information they make available, but they also

restrain themselves from searching for information that may be politically censored.32

Such “self-regulation” is promoted by distribution of strict guidelines for Internet users

by various pro-government groups such as Internet Society of China.33

Censorship is

particularly intensive for foreign websites, which cannot be trusted to monitor themselves

according to Chinese standards. 34

The government implements a complex system of technical tools in controlling

the content accessed by computers and other devices like mobile phones. The famous

“Great Firewall” is only a part of the larger monitoring system known as the Golden

Shield project.35

The difficulty of controlling foreign social media websites has resulted

in blocking the foreign sites while creating their Chinese equivalents that are far easier to

control. Currently Chinese people use equivalents of Facebook, Twitter, Google, eBay,

YouTube, PayPal and even instant messaging programs like Skype, MSN, Yahoo,

Google Talk, AIM and ICQ.36

Internet cafes are also strictly regulated, keeping track of

user information and using cameras to monitor online activity. Filtering using certain key

words occurs at the ISP level as well, which results in blocking of IP address for

threatening websites.37

Most ISPs in China are state owned and therefore tighter control

of website access is easier than with privately owned ISPs.38

With the growth of mobile

technology, the Chinese government has extended the system of regulation to include

devices like mobile phones. The use of Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) chips requires

mobile phone owners to register with detailed personal information, and allows the

government to track mobile phone activity along with the location and identity of the

user. The Green Dam project is another well designed mechanism for Internet control. In

2009, mandatory “content-control software” was installed on all computers sold in

32








9

China,39

but later this requirement was limited to just publicly used computers like those

in schools and Internet cafes.40

The cyber police of China are accessible 24/7 and welcome reporting of unlawful

Internet activity. All websites display a button with the cyber police icon with a link to

their website. Although the cyber policing is aimed at politically disruptive sites,

commercial websites and ISPs cannot escape the system either. Using a points system,

websites and ISPs are incentivized to promote specific contents about the government

while blocking undesirable materials. If those sites are involved in positive government

propaganda, they can earn extra points, while with letting anti-government content leak,

will lose points. After the points of a website or ISP drop below some unspecified

number, their website or service will be closed down.41

To fight the issues that can follow anonymity and free speech online, legislation

has had a significant role in China since 1994.42

Various Internet laws have been issued

by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Internet Issues,

which have addressed issues about communication and dissemination of specific types of

information. In 2000, the State Council on Internet Services Management and Regulation

also passed a law, Measures for the Management of Internet Information Services.

Additionally, local regulation of Internet laws by provincial government has also had a

significant impact, since those laws are more tailored to the industries or activities in

those specific locations.43

Although the Internet in China may seem to be a monotonous and boring space

with only positive propaganda for the party and completely controlled, the case is quite

the opposite. People hold discussions on various subjects. Discussions on government

are never straightforward and people try to mask their sentiments with humor, while

discussions on the economy or other important subjects can be very involved and

candid.44

China’s Internet surveillance system is intended for securing the CCP rule

39




Ming Qi, Chinese Law and Government: Analysis of Chinese Internet Law, vol. 43, no. 5, M.E. Sharpe. Inc.:

2010, pg. 5. 43

Ming Qi, Chinese Law and Government, pg. 8. 44


10

through regulation of political expression, and it has shown to be impressively efficient,

well-planned and successfully implemented.

IV. Religion

The regulation of the freedom of expression regarding religion is yet another area

where states are creating cyber borders in accordance with existing law or societal norms.

States which sponsor a religion or have a strong affiliation with a religion are regulating

online religious expression within their borders. In the Arab world, the Internet

penetrance in 2006 was 7.8 percent of the population or approximately 23 million users,

still relatively low compared to industrialized nations. In wealthier Arab states like

Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, over twenty percent of the

population has Internet access. The poorest Arab states like Syria, Yemen and Libya

have Internet penetrance of less than 5 percent of the population. Media in most of the

Arab world is closely monitored or controlled by the state, and individuals working in the

media are subjected to harsh penalties for any slight or insult to Islam. 45

Saudi Arabia provided its citizens Internet access in 1999, only once the

government could effectively censor the Internet through a state-owned Internet

infrastructure with extensive firewalls which logged the identity of users requesting

access to restricted or banned sites.46

Saudi Arabia considers Islam to be its Constitution

and is ruled entirely by Islamic Shari’a Law.47

Though it was the first Arab state to

provide Internet access to its citizens, Saudi Arabia’s Internet is the most heavily

censored and restricted in the Arab world. Between 1997 and 1999, there was significant

debate about the dangers of introducing the Internet to the public. Then Minister of

Religious Trusts and Guidance, Abdallah bin Abd al-Muhsin al-Turki, opined that the

Internet would promote western democracy and he stated that Islamic Shari’a law did not

rely on majority vote, but rather the judgment of the clerics. Although Internet access

was ultimately made available to the public, Saudi ISPs were strictly forbidden from

45

Barney Warf and Peter Vincent, Multiple Geographies of the Arab Internet. Area, Vol. 39, № 1, April 13,

2007, pg. 84. 46

Warf and Vincent, Multiple Geographies of the Arab Internet, pg. 90. 47

Joshua Teitelbaum, Dueling for "Da'wa": State vs. Society on the Saudi Internet, Middle East Journal, Vol. 56,

№ 2, Spring, 2002, pg. 223.

11

allowing any Internet activity that violated the religious values of Saudi Arabia.48

The

Kingdom has also enforced its laws on prohibited Internet activity. In February 2012, a

Saudi writer, Hamza Kashghari was arrested in Riyadh airport on blasphemy charges for

criticizing Islam in his online blog.49

In Tunisia, the government has forbid ISPs from allowing Internet activity that

would be offensive to the country’s political, religious and moral values.50

On the other

hand, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain appear to have more

liberal Internet regulations.51

Malaysia is also an interesting case of a Muslim nation

which has embraced the Internet with relatively few restrictions. Malaysia’s legal system

has a similar structure to that of Western nations. Adopting a system of modernized

Islamic law, Malaysia maintains Islam as the state-sponsored religion while avoiding the

implementation of Shari’a law.52

Although Malaysia, like many countries, is

implementing a cyber police force, there is no evidence that online regulation and

censorship of religious activity will be implemented.53

Religious censorship in cyberspace is not confined to the Arab world. Although

blasphemy is technically illegal in several European nations, Italy is one of the few that

continue to enforce this law. In 2002, under anti-blasphemy law, the Italian police shut

down five websites which were deemed grossly abusive or insulting to God and the

Virgin Mary.54

Ireland, which had vague blasphemy laws under the 1937 Constitution,

enacted new legislation in 2009 which made blasphemy illegal and punishable with a fine

of up to 25,000 euros.55

The law is currently being challenged by the group Atheist

Ireland which has posted potentially blasphemous statements on their website.56

It is

48

Joshua Teitelbaum, Dueling for "Da'wa": State vs. Society on the Saudi Internet, pg. 224. 49

Glen Carey, Saudi Arabia Arrests Blogger for Insulting Islam, Arab News Says, edited Feb. 13, 2012, accessed

Dec. 15, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/saudi-arabia-arrests-blogger-for-insulting-islam-

arab-news-says.html. 50

Toby E. Huff. Globalization and the Internet: Comparing the Middle Eastern and Malaysian Experiences,

Middle East Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, Summer, 2001, pg. 445. 51

Warf and Vincent, pg. 90. 52

Huff. Globalization and the Internet: Comparing the Middle Eastern and Malaysian Experiences, pg. 455. 53

Huff. Globalization and the Internet: Comparing the Middle Eastern and Malaysian Experiences, pg. 457. 54

NNC News, Italy gags 'porno' Virgin Mary sites, edited July 10, 2002, accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2119780.stm. 55

Karla Adam, Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings, The Washington Post,

edited Jan. 3, 2010, accessed Dec. 15, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR2010010201846.html. 56

Henry McDonald, Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws, The Guardian, edited Jan. 1, 2010, accessed

Dec. 16, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law.

12

clear that states with strong views on religion are making an effort to regulate religious

expression in cyberspace to conform to the accepted societal norm, whether that norm is

strict religious control or religious tolerance.

V. Conclusion

With the increasing regulation of cyberspace along national boundaries,

cyberspace is beginning to develop characteristics of a traditional international relations

system of nation-states. The inherently global nature of the Internet has the potential to

weaken the ability of states to control the information available to their citizens and

protect their citizens from potentially harmful online content. To more firmly establish

the values and norms of the state within cyberspace, regulations on online freedom of

expression are being instituted. Increasing regulation of cyberspace is occurring among

nations with a wide range of systems of governance. Nations regulate the freedom of

expression in cyberspace on potentially volatile topics such as human rights, politics, and

religion according to societal and legal norms. The mechanisms for regulation include

direct law, voluntary self-regulation, and state-sponsored or state-supported censoring

and restriction of online content. In effect, states are extending their existing legal system

and cultural norms into cyberspace and over their own netizens. Cyberspace was initially

envisioned as a borderless global arena, but the result of increasing cyber borders is an

Internet experience colored by the lens of one’s nation, rather than a universal one.

13

Bibliography:

Adam, Karla. Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings. The

Washington Post. Edited Jan. 3, 2010. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR2010010201846.html.

Banks, James. European Regulation of Cross-Border Hate Speech in Cyberspace: The

Limits of Legislation. European Journal of Crime. Criminal Law and Criminal

Justice 19. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 2011.

http://www.academia.edu/1006708/Banks_J._2011_European_Regulation_of_Cr

oss-

Border_Hate_Speech_in_Cyberspace_The_Limits_of_Legislation_European_Jou

rnal_of_Crime_Criminal_Law_and_Criminal_Justice_19_1-13.

Carey, Glen. Saudi Arabia Arrests Blogger for Insulting Islam, Arab News Says. Edited

Feb. 13, 2012. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-

02-13/saudi-arabia-arrests-blogger-for-insulting-islam-arab-news-says.html.

Chen, Kaiju & Zhang, Xinhong. Trial by media: overcorrection of the inadequacy of the

right to free speech in contemporary China. Critical Arts Projects and Unisa

Press: 2011.

Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers. Vienna Declaration. Vienna, 9

October 1993. Accessed Dec. 14, 2012.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=621771.

Council of Europe (CoE). European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).

On Combating Racism, Xenophobia, Antisemitism and Intolerance. ECRI General

Policy Recommendation №1. Adopted by ECRI on 4 Oct. 1996.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/gpr/en/recommendation_n1/R

ec01en.pdf.

Council of Europe (CoE). Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime,

concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature

committed through computer systems. Strasbourg, 28.I.2003. Accessed Dec. 12,

2012. Chapter II. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm.

Council of Europe (CoE). Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime,

concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature

committed through computer systems CETS No.: 189. Edited Dec. 17, 2012.

Accessed Dec. 17, 2012.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=189&CM=4&DF

=&CL=ENG.

14

Cover Image Source: TheOwlBlog.com. UN Wants The Internet & Taxes But No Cuts?

Edited Nov. 26, 2012. Internet Map Photograph. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://theowlblog.com/un-wants-the-internet-taxes-but-no-cuts/.

Cyber Law Blog. Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben wins German extradition fight. Nov.

21, 2008. Accessed Dec. 12, 2012. http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/21/holocaust-

denier-fredrick-toben-wins-german-extradition-fight-times-online/.

Heneghan, Tom. U.S-French Gap Narrows Over Fighting Web Hate. OSCE conference

in Paris on the relationship between racist, xenophobic and antisemitic

propaganda on the Internet and hate crimes. Edited Jun 17, 2004. Accessed Dec.

14, 2012. http://www.inach.net/content/osce-paris-pressarticles.html#U.S-

French%20Gap%20Narrows%20Over%20Fighting%20Web%20Hate.

Huff, Toby E. Globalization and the Internet: Comparing the Middle Eastern and

Malaysian Experiences. Middle East Journal. Vol. 55, No. 3, Summer, 2001.

Human Rights Watch. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview. 2006 Report.

Accessed Dec. 15, 2012. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm.

Hung, Shirley. A Different Vision of Openness: The Chinese Internet. Talk for

Communications Futures Program. Edited May 25, 2011. Accessed Dec. 12,

2012.

Hung, Shirley. The Chinese Internet: Control Through the Layers. Explorations in Cyber

International Relations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Harvard

University. October 30, 2012.

Internet World Stats. Internet Usage and Population Statistics. Edited Nov. 18, 2012.

Accessed Dec. 15, 2012. http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm.

Joseph, William. Politics of China. Lecture Notes. Wellesley College. Wellesley, MA,

fall 2012.

Juriscom.net. La Ligue Contre La Racisme et L’Antisemitisme (LICRA) and Union des

Etudiants Juifs de France (UEJF) v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France. Edited Feb.

5, 2010. Accessed Dec. 12, 2012.

http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/yauctions20000522.htm.

Kettmann, Steve. German Hate Law: No Denying It. WIRED. Edited Dec. 15, 2000.


http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669#ixzz0jTf5lnLh.

McDonald, Henry. Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws. The Guardian. Edited

Jan. 1, 2010. Accessed Dec. 16, 2012.

15

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-

law.

NNC News. Italy gags 'porno' Virgin Mary sites. Edited July 10, 2002. Accessed Dec.

15, 2012. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2119780.stm.

Qi, Ming. Chinese Law and Government: Analysis of Chinese Internet Law. Vol. 43, №

5, M.E. Sharpe, Inc.: 2010.

Ramasastry, Anita. Can Europe block racist Web sites from its borders? CNN Law

Center. Find Law. Edited Feb. 6, 2003. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/06/findlaw.analysis.ramasastry.cyberlaw/inde

x.html.

Saletan, William. Hate-Speech Hypocrites: How can we ban hate speech against Jews

while defending mockery of Muslims? Slate. Edited Sept. 28, 2012. Accessed Dec.

14, 2012.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/free_speec

h_vs_hate_speech_why_is_it_legal_to_insult_muslims_but_not_jews_.single.htm

l.

Scheeres, Julia. Europeans Outlaw Net Hate Speech. WIRED. edited Nov. 9, 2002.


http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/11/56294.

Severson, Kim. Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says. Edited Mar. 7, 2012.

Accessed Dec. 14, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/number-of-us-

hate-groups-on-the-rise-report-says.html?_r=0.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Who We Are: A Rich History. Accessed Dec. 14,

2012. http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are.

Teitelbaum, Joshua. Dueling for "Da'wa": State vs. Society on the Saudi Internet. Middle

East Journal. Vol. 56, № 2, Spring, 2002.

The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA). Code of Practice. Accessed Dec. 12,

2012. http://www.ispa.org.uk/about-us/ispa-code-of-practice/.

Van Blarcum, Christopher D. Internet Hate Speech: The European Framework and the

Emerging American Haven. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012. pg.791.

http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/62-2VanBlarcum.pdf.

Van Blarcum, Christopher D. Internet Hate Speech: The European Framework and the

Emerging American Haven. Washington and Lee Law Review. Volume 62. Issue

2. Edited Mar. 1, 2005. Accessed Dec. 15, 2012. pg. 803-804.

16

http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context

=wlulr.

Warf, Barney and Vincent, Peter. Multiple Geographies of the Arab Internet. Area. Vol.

39, № 1, Mar. 2007.

Documents

The Rise of Cyber Borders: Establishing National Boundaries in Cyberspace