[WSIS CS-Plenary] Indymedia Update [en] : Why we have to react

[Milton Mueller]

>>> president at isoc.ch 10/12/2004 6:01:11 AM >>>
>I'd like to conclude with a question: Can someone explain to me the
>difference between the fact that in the US Constitution: First
Amendment,
>freedom of speech is protecting websites which are promoting calls to
racial
>hate - like Ku Klux Klan - and yet it seems not to protect the freedom
of
>speech of media?

Websites are "media." A Ku Klux Klan website is a "media outlet" just
as much as the Indymedia websites. According to our First Amendment,
which is supposed to restrict state action, both should have the same
right to 
freedom of expression. 

However, if a Ku Klux Klan website was suspected of certain forms
of speech that could be considered "incitement" to violence or
"threats"
of illegal action it could be closed down under US law. For example, 
rightwing websites that seemed to be calling for the murder of doctors

performing abortions were restricted. 

The First Amendment of course cannot guarantee
that governments won't restrict free expression; all it provides is a
form of
legal redress if they do. I see that Indymedia is conferring with EFF.
Good.

But, keep in mind that the First Amendment may not be the applicable
law 
here. The action seems to have been initiated by the *Italian* police,

who believe that *Italy* Indymedia may "support terrorism" 
(according to the Indymedia website). So if you want a better answer 
to your question,  I would suggest that you look into the law governing

speech and terrorism in Italy. The UK, by the way, has even worse laws

regarding free speech than the U.S.

--MM