Alaw that would give Russian authorities the power to force certain Internet sites offline is, according to the government, meant to help block sites containing images of child abuse and other material deemed illegal. But opponents have warned that censorship could later be extended. And so the universal debate over freedom of speech continues. Russian officials say the goal is to protect minors from websites featuring abuse of children, sites that solicit children for pornography, offer details about how to commit suicide, and encourage users to take drugs. Critics, though, have complained that once Internet providers have been forced to start blocking certain sites, the government may seek court orders to expand the blacklist and thus increase censorship. It is being described as another attempt by President Vladimir Putin to exercise control over the population. The view in some parts is that websites will not be limited to children. The government will start closing other sites - any democracy-oriented site is at risk of being taken offline. To close a website, the government would simply have to say that its content was “harmful to children". The new Russian law does certainly provide an easy means for authorities to attack freedom of speech by blacklisting any freedom-loving sites or any sites critical of the government. But freedom of speech does not give one the right to say whatever he wants. Speech that is likely to lead to lawless action may be prohibited, and so, too, words so insulting that people are likely to fight back; obscenities that are grossly offensive to an average person; and defamatory statements with the expressed purpose of malice. There is a liberating ease with which ordinary citizens can cheaply make their views known to one another through the Internet. The Internet offers extraordinary opportunities for anyone. Anyone who wants to express an opinion about anything can do so to a worldwide audience far more easily than has ever been possible before. Millions of Internet participants have seized that opportunity. The resultant outpouring of speech is considered by many to be awesome but what is being said can also be offensive and frightening. Pornography, hate speech and lurid threats flourish alongside debates over the future of a country and exchanges of views concerning who will win tomorrow's football match. There is the right to information on the one hand and the right to be protected against harmful content on the other and that balancing act has provoked various efforts to limit the kind of speech in which one may engage on the Internet or, as in Russia's case, to develop systems to filter out the more offensive material. The Internet is not always a quaint town hall meeting. The kinds of information and discussions it fosters are at times disturbing. Checks are needed. Everything has a limit, many times at the expense of genuine constructive criticism with the sole intention of the betterment of society. Democracy is imperfect. It is also not a free-for-all.
