The internet is angry - is it winning?

Anti-piracy law protest in US

The internet community - if there is such a thing - has risen up in anger over recent weeks. The main cause of its concerns have been perceived attempts to curtail online freedom by governments and corporations. So what makes the internet angry - and when does that anger have any impact?

In the United States there was outrage over proposed anti-piracy legislation, Pipa and Sopa, which culminated in a concerted global campaign to highlight the issues by blacking out sites like Wikipedia for 24 hours. And it worked - American politicians who seemed to have assumed that this was a somewhat obscure and uncontroversial issue took fright, and the new laws have been put on the back-burner.

Now it's Europe's turn, with demonstrations over the weekend against another piece of anti-piracy legislation Acta, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. (By the way, there is a good explanation of all of the various anti-piracy measures here.) Now, for all the online anger, this is not an issue that has really caught the public imagination in the UK. The crowd at London's anti-Acta demo numbered no more than a few hundred.

But in Eastern Europe, where internet freedoms are perhaps valued more highly, tens of thousands have taken to the streets. And again, politicians who were quietly proceeding with what they thought was an uncontroversial move to standardise copyright laws have been forced to respond. In three countries, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, they have halted the implementation of the treaty, and the European Parliament now appears less than eager to ratify it.

So, internet 2, governments 0, with online democracy proving its worth? Maybe - although supporters of the various anti-piracy laws would argue that the voices of those who create content which others take for nothing are not being heard in this debate.

And while these online campaigns are proving that they can sway democratic politicians, how powerful will they be against more authoritarian governments?

Consider the case of the Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari. After using Twitter to express some thoughts about the Prophet Muhammad which some considered blasphemous, he fled to Malaysia, apparently fearing for his life. Over the weekend the Malaysian government put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, ignoring the pleas of liberal Muslims in their own country.

We don't know what will happen now to Hamza Kashgari. But his case, on the face of it, looks like a more immediate threat to internet freedom than any anti-piracy laws. So will we see the internet community getting as angry about his case as it has about Sopa and Acta? And if it does will it have any impact on the Saudi authorities?

Looking at Twitter over the last 24 hours, there are signs of a surge of anger against Malaysia, for deporting Hamza Kashgari, and against the Saudi authorities. Some are linking the case to the recent purchase of a stake in Twitter by a Saudi billionaire and asking whether that will affect the social network's view of the affair. But, compared to the rage against anti-piracy measures, this is a fairly muted protest so far.

An angry internet community has discovered its strength over the last year, but there have been few signs that it can challenge governments that are determined not to listen. The fate of Hamza Kashgari could reveal some uncomfortable truths about the battle for online freedom.

Rory Cellan-Jones, Technology correspondent Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

More on This Story

More from Rory


Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    "So will we see the internet community getting as angry about his case as it has about Sopa and Acta?" - hint of somebody trying to hijack a subject. The obvious answer is no. The anger against SOPA and ACTA had a direct target: national governments. Any anger directed against a foreign government won't have the same impact.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    Rory, you wrote:

    "supporters of the various anti-piracy laws would argue that the voices of those who create content which others take for nothing are not being heard in this debate."

    I don't think that is the case at all - SOPA, PIPA and ACTA have all been created by entertainment lobbysists - many lawmakers didn't even bother to read them. If anything, their voice is too loud in this debate.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    Good article - number of issues to cover in short time. US has the 1st amendment so freedom of speech along with the DNS blocking concerns caused outrage (and rightly so). UK is looking at IWF style blocking for copyright & child safety. ACTA is not just about copyright & has a wider reach. Religion & free speech in MIddle East is deals w/ state mandate blocking & tracking. So many nuances!

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    Do the people who fight against copyright legislation ever consider the longer term effects of their position. If recording-artists and film-makers cannot, at least, recover their costs and make a decent living on top then why should they bother making music or films in the first place. Whatever these people think, NOTHING in life is actually free.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    How many from the young and brave Anonymous fighters can swear that they fight for freedom and do not periodically steal movies and music (and could not care less about the creators in this world)?


Comments 5 of 120


This entry is now closed for comments


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.