The French Disconnection

Don't imagine that the United Nations is done trying to sieze control of the internet. Too many despots, who still make up the United Nations' majority feel threatened by free speech. Heck, as the recent vote on internet free speech showed, Democrats in this country feel threatened by free speech.

But even among supposed democracies, there is a French-style resentment of U.S. control. As European Union spokesman Martin Selmayr put it, the U.S. must "give up their unilateral control and everything will be fine."

Old Europe and the despotic nations want exactly that--international Internet content control. And they have convinced the EU establishment that U.N. control of the Internet would be just and appropriate. The last United Nations World Summit on the Internet--held in 2003--concluded that "governments should intervene . . . to maximize economic and social benefits and serve national priorities." The report of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance says it would have "respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, " explaining that meant "multilingual, diverse, and culturally appropriate content" on the Internet.

And what is "culturally appropriate" content? If your nation is a free society--America, Ireland, Australia--a free and unregulated-content Internet is a good thing. For dictatorships and state controlled societies--the former USSR, China or Cuba--it is a catastrophe, for allowing citizens free access to information puts your government at risk. And if you are in between--a socialist government like France or Germany--U.N. control is a good thing because government control is always better than unregulated markets.

As with freedom everywhere, the price of internet freedom will always be vigilance.