On Friday, Google hosted its first Big Tent event in DC with co-sponsor Bloomberg to discuss the future of free speech in the digital age.

Each panel was guided by hypothetical scenarios that mirrored real current events and raised interesting free speech questions around offence, takedown requests, self-censorship, government leaks, national security and surveillance. The audience anonymously voted on the decision they would have made in each case, but as Bill Keller, former executive editor at the New York Times, acknowledged, “real life is not a multiple choice question”. Complex decisions are seldom made with a single course of action when national security, privacy and freedom of expression are all at stake.

The first panel explored how and when news organisations and web companies decide to limit free speech online. Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond said that governments “go for choke points on the internet” when looking to restrict access to particular content, meaning major search engines and social media sites are often their first targets regardless of where the offending content is hosted online. Drummond said that Google is partially blocked in 30 of the 150 countries in which it operates and cited an OpenNet Initiative statistic that at least 42 countries currently filter online content. Much of this panel focused on last year’s Innocence of Muslims video, which 20 countries approached Google to review or remove. Drummond questioned whether democracies like the US, which asked Google to review the video, are doing enough to support free expression abroad.

Mark Whitaker, a former journalist and executive at CNN and NBC, said staff safety in hostile environments is more important in deciding whether to kill a story than “abstract issues” like free speech. Security considerations are important, but characterising freedom of expression as “abstract” and endorsing self-censorship in its place can set a worrying precedent. Bill Keller argued that publishing controversial stories in difficult circumstances can bring more credibility to a newsroom, but can also lead to its exile. Both the New York Times and Bloomberg were banned in China last summer for publishing stories about the financial assets of the country’s premier. This reality means that news organisation and web companies often weigh public interest and basic freedom of expression against market concerns. Whitaker acknowledged that the increased consolidation of media ownership in many countries means financial considerations are being given even greater weight.

The second panel debated free speech and security, with Susan Benesch of the Dangerous Speech Project standing up for free speech, former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales coming down hard on the side of security, and current Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute backing up Gonzales while recognising the vital role free speech plays in a functioning society.

In the first scenario posed to this panel, audience members were split on whether mobile networks should be shut down when a clear and imminent threat, such as the remote detonation of a bomb, arises. Lute said, “the first instinct should not be to shut down everything, that’s part of how we’ll find out what’s going on,” whereas Benesch focused on the civil liberties rather than surveillance implications of crippling communications networks.

In cases of extremism, which the panel agreed is often more easily and quickly spread via digital communications, Benesch endorsed counter speech above speech restrictions as the best way to defend against hate and violence. 94 percent of the audience agreed that social media should not be restricted in a scenario about how authorities should react when groups use social media to organise protests that might turn violent.

Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt closed the event by highlighting what he considers to be key threats and opportunities for digital expression. Schmidt believes that the world’s five billion feature phones will soon be replaced with smartphones, opening new spaces for dissent and allowing us “to hear the voices of citizens like never before”. Whether he thinks this dissent will outweigh the government repression that’s likely to follow is unclear.

Big Tent will make its way back to London next month where Google hosted the first event of its  kind two years ago. The theme will focus on “innovation in the next ten years” with Ed Milliband, Eric Schmidt and journalist Heather Brooke as featured speakers.

Google is an Index on Censorship funder.

The post Google asks DC to explore free speech in digital age appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In early March, the Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General, Cláudio Cajado, contacted Google in order to request the removal of online videos and content hosted by the company, for being offensive to deputies.

Cajado, a Democratas Party representative from the state of Bahia, denies that his requests were attempts to restrict freedom of expression, and claimed that he only wanted to speed up the processes that, when left to the Justice, could take months — or even years to be solved.

According to Cajado’s office, Google has responded to his requests by being very “thoughtful” in explaining its policies on content removal.

The Attorney General’s office says it receives an average of two complaints per month by the deputies, mainly because of videos uploaded on YouTube, or posts published on its Blogger platform.

The Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General is responsible for defending the deputies’ honour and the House’s image.

“We seek a partnership [with Google] to set up actions and attitudes, without creating any kind of erosion [of the House's image] or harsh consequences”, said Cajado to the Chamber of Deputies’ website.

He cited the case of federal deputy and former Rio de Janeiro governor and presidential candidate Anthony Garotinho, who filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of 11 YouTube videos during the 2010 electoral campaign.

“We have to count on Google executives’ good will and on their comprehension over the importance of measures like this to our country’s life and our democracy,” said Cajado.

As he took office as the Chamber’s Attorney General in early March, Cajado also said he planned to ensure that deputies had enough media time to reply to criticism, and plans to do the same online.

All complaints brought by deputies to the Attorney General are analysed by his office’s legal team, to ensure that cases that can lead to actual lawsuits are taken forward.

The most common cases of online attacks brought to the Attorney General’s office are related to slander and — more seriously — crimes against honour, which is a punishable offence according to Brazil’s law.

When it comes to the Brazilian judiciary, rulings about the internet can be very diverse and — sometimes — illogical.

In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos deemed offensive to a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.

While the Superior Court of Justice has already ruled that internet providers are not obliged to pay reparations to users because of offensive content, the Supreme Court is about to judge if internet companies should supervise information that is published.

This is related to an appeal by Google after the State Justice of Minas Gerais, Brazil’s second most populous state, ordered the company to pay BRL 10,000 (around USD $5,000) to an offended user, and to remove content from Orkut, Google’s social network.

The Attorney General’s new initiative has already worried a few of his fellow deputies.

“The Parliament’s best defence is a transparent behaviour, one that seeks the public interest. And anyone that feels injured or vilified can always go to the Justice and seek reparation. I believe the Attorney General should have other priorities.” says Chico Alencar, a Rio de Janeiro representative for the Socialism and Freedom Party, PSOL.

Alencar also fears that these actions taken along with Google could worsen politicians already tarnished public image.

“Public opinion would consider this as censorship and a privilege for people that already have many other privileges. We should learn how to reply to websites by creating another websites and, if that’s the case, asking those who offend us for the right to reply. That would be enough.”

Editor’s note: Google is a funder of Index on Censorship

The post Brazil’s politician pile on pressure to remove “offensive” web content appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In our increasingly digital times, freedom of expression may look like one of the positive beneficiaries of our ever more interconnected world. Countries like China or Iran build firewalls and employ small armies of censors and snoopers in determined attempts to keep their bit of the internet controlled and uncritical of their ruling elites. But with social media, blogs, citizen journalism, and ever greater amounts of news on a diverse and expanding range of sites, information is shared across borders and goes around censors with greater ease than ever before.

Yet online and off, free speech still needs defending from those in power who would like to control information, limit criticism or snoop widely across people and populations. And it would be a mistake to think the free speech attackers are only the obvious bad guys like China, Iran or North Korea.

While Putin’s Russia jails members of Pussy Riot, passes new laws to block websites and journalists continue to face risks of violent attack, it is Turkey, in 2013, that has more journalists in jail than even Iran or China. In 2004, the European Union assessed Turkey as democratic enough to be a candidate for EU membership. Today, Turkey’s government puts pressure on media companies and editors to rein in critical journalists and self-censorship is rife.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a fully paid-up member of the democracy club, the government and opposition argue over whether Parliament should regulate the print media (“statutory underpinning”, to use the jargon introduced by the Leveson Report into the phone-hacking scandal). On 18 March, the UK’s three main political parties agreed on a new press regulation system whereby an independent regulator would be set up by royal charter. And in this debate over media standards and regulation, the most basic principle, that politicians should not in any way control the press (given their interests in positive, uncritical press coverage), has been too easily abandoned by many. Yet the press faces big questions: what has happened to its standards, how can individuals fairly complain? Similar debates are under way in India, with corruption and the phenomenon of ‘“paid news” among concerns there. Falling standards provide easy targets for those who would control press freedom for other reasons.

Plenty of governments of all shades are showing themselves only too ready to compromise on civil liberties in the face of the large amounts of easily accessible data our digital world produces. Shining a light on requests for information — as Google and Twitter do in their respective transparency reports —  is one vital part of the campaigns and democraticdebate needed if the internet is not to become a partially censored, and highly monitored, world.

Google’s recent update of its figures for requests for user data by law enforcement agencies shows the US way ahead of other countries — accounting for over a third of requests with 8,438 demands, with India coming in at 2,431 and the UK, Germany and France not so far behind India.

Both India and the UK have also used too widely drawn laws that criminalise “grossly offensive” comments, leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals for innocuous social media comments. Public outcry and ensuing debate in both countries is one sign that people will stand up for free speech. But such laws must change.

A new digital revolution is coming, as millions more people move online via their mobiles. As smart phone prices fall, and take-up expands, the opportunities for free expression and accessto information across borders are set to grow. But unless we are all vigilant, whether we face democratic or authoritarian regimes, in demanding our right to that free expression, our digital world risks being a partially censored, monitored and fragmented one. This is the global free speech challenge of our times.

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post Global view appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In a statement  announcing the report, Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith acknowledged “the broadening public interest in how often law enforcement agencies request customer data from technology companies and how our industry responds to these requests” and commended Google and Twitter for leading the way with their annual transparency reports. In addition to user data requests, Google’s reports reveal takedown requests and, for the first time two weeks ago, the number of secretive national security letters it receives from the US government each year. Index encourages Microsoft to reveal this data in subsequent reports. As the number of companies issuing transparency reports grows, we encourage government agencies to do the same in the name of greater transparency and accountability.

Click here to read Microsoft’s report . Standout statistics include:

• 99 per cent of the 1,558 requests Microsoft complied with by disclosing customer content came in response to lawful warrants from US courts.
• Skype released no content in response to the 4,713 requests for user data it received but did release user account information in some cases.
• Two-thirds of the cases in which Microsoft disclosed non-content (ie user account details) came in response to requests from the US, the UK, Turkey, Germany and France.

The post New Microsoft report: a step towards transparency appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Brazil’s constitution guarantees both freedom of the press and free speech. The government does not impose censorship in the media. However, recent actions taken by the judiciary —  most of them concerning the removal of online content deemed defamatory —  have been extremely controversial.

In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos about a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. They were considered to be offensive to Alcides Bernal, who was running for office in the state’s capital city. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.

Fabio Coelho’s case illustrates clearly how rigid the country’s laws are when it comes to offensive material. Still, many people argue that some of the judges’ decisions in these cases have been excessive. “There are gaps in Brazil’s electoral legislation that make this kind of situation possible”, said Google Brazil’s Public Policy Senior Counsel Marcel Leonardi when asked about Coelho’s detention. He hopes that the case will shine a light ‘on the need to adjust Brazil’s law, so that legitimate political outcries from internet users can be differentiated from, say, unlawful propaganda. The internet’s dynamics need to be understood.”

By not removing the videos, Google tried to make a case for the need for more liberal laws regarding free speech in Brazil, says Marcelo Träsel, Digital Journalism Professor at Pontifícia Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul University (PUCRS) in Porto Alegre. To make the internet giant responsible for the content ”is like making builders liable for crimes committed by apartment-buyers, or a bus company for crimes committed by its passengers”, he says. “As long as Google has proper means for filing complaints about content — and it does have them — and takes effective measures to restrict abuses when warned about them, the final responsibility must be laid upon the client that published controversial material”, he adds.

Falha de S Paulo is a blog that was shut down for parodying one of Brazil’s leading newspapers

When Folha de S Paulo, the country’s most influential daily newspaper, was criticised for its coverage of that year’s general elections in a blog called Falha de S Paulo (Folha, meaning “newspaper”, was replaced with falha, meaning “fail”), Folha filed a lawsuit claiming the blog’s logo, content, pictures and text font imitated its graphic design and confused web users. A judge demanded the website be removed and imposed a daily fine on its authors. On 20 February, the ban was upheld. “Censorship is supposed to be prohibited [in Brazil]“, said one of the blog’s creators, Lino Ito Bocchini, in an interview with the website Comunique- Se, “but in reality, free speech is only guaranteed to those who have money”. He later expressed his intention to appeal the decision. The case was raised with Frank la Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. In a recent visit to Brazil, he referred to the situation as “terrible”. Marcelo Träsel agrees that financial pressure comes into play in cases like this. “Politicians, business people and other powerful personalities found that they can silence their critics by filing lawsuits. Influential figures who become  the subject of a scandal are in a financial position to “torment” those who criticise them. “These people don’t even need to win in court”, Träsel says. Filing a lawsuit claiming damages could be enough to shut up a whistleblowing blogger, for example. ”I believe that’s the main threat to free speech in Brazil, and I believe that cases like Falha de S Paulo will grow in number.”

The practice of filing lawsuits to remove defamatory content from the internet also disturbs Google’s Marcel Leonardi. “The internet gives you the possibility to immediately respond to anyone, and in many different ways, like posting videos or creating hyperlinks,” he told Index. In situations like the Falha de S Paulo case, the best way of replying to criticism is by having an online presence so that people can “inform and reply to critics in one’s own virtual space,” he said. According to a recent Transparency Report published by Google, Brazil tops the list of countries that regularly removed digital content. In Leonardi’s opinion, Brazil will continue in this vein unless the “culture of lawsuits” is somehow overcome.

In Brazil, the judiciary has the exclusive power to order content to be taken down from a website — no government body has the right to do so. Other public agents, like federal prosecutors, can only file their demands through lawsuits, as regular attorneys must do. Leonardi believes Brazil is caught between liberal countries like the US, which seldom accepts non-copyright related content removal, and less democratic nations where the main problem isn’t content removal but attacks against publishers and direct government censorship over websites and social media.

Experts like PUCRS’s Marcelo Träsel say that adopting laws that differentiate the “virtual world” from traditional media would bring more clarity to judges’ decisions. In 2012, Congress debated two initiatives that pointed in this direction. One of them — a bill that deals with digital crimes, specifying correlated penalties — was voted in by lawmakers in early November.But another draft bill — called Marco Civil da Internet, or the Internet Civil Right Framework, seen as an “Internet Bill of Rights” — was shelved in November. Marco Civil would have guaranteed basic rights for users, content creators and online intermediaries and established that providers are not responsible for user content. It also would have guaranteed net neutrality, a move that angered the telecommunications industry, as it would prevent them from charging different rates for the various kinds of online content.

Deputy Alessandro Molon, who sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecom companies lobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market. “Approving Marco Civil would be a very important step to guarantee freedom of expression in Brazil”, notes Träsel. However, this type of guarantee for civil rights is unlikely to be seen in the country for the foreseeable future, and judges’ decisions are likely to remain as controversial and damaging as ever.

Rafael Spuldar is Index’s regional editor in Brazil. He tweets from @spuldar

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post On the ground: Sao Paulo appeared first on Index on Censorship.

 Iranian opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi has been under house arrest for two years

Two daughters of a former presidential candidate held under house arrest for nearly two years have been arrested in Iran. Zahra and Narges Mousavi, daughters of Mirhossein Mousavi, Iranian prime minister in the 1980s, were arrested by security forces on February 11. Along with Mousavi’s third daughter, they had written in a statement that authorities had denied Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnavard access to their children for weeks. Mousavi and Rahnavard were placed under house arrest along with opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi and his wife Fatemeh, after they called for demonstrations to support the Arab uprisings across the region in February 2011. The Islamic Republic is facing a presidential vote in June, and hardliners have accused opposition leaders of plotting a second sedition after the last protests were crushed by security forces. They have also called for the execution of both men, but the government are choosing to keep them in solitary confinement.

Saudia Arabia’s minister for media and culture has confirmed that a range of government bodies have been censoring Twitter, reports on 13 February said. Abdel Aziz Khoga called on Saudi citizens to ”raise their awareness” and monitor their social media activity more carefully, as it was proving increasingly difficult to monitor the three million Twitter subscribers around the kingdom. Under the Sunni monarchy, writer Turki Al-Hamad is one of many journalists in prison under blasphemy charges. He was arrested for insulting Islam in January, after he accused radical Islamists of corrupting Prophet Mohammad’s “message of love” in a Tweet in December 2o12. Online activist Raif Badawi was arrested in June 2012 and was charged with apostasy for his tweet, a sentence which carries the death penalty.

On 14 February, two Nigerian journalists appeared in court for criticising the government’s polio campaign. Yakubu Fagge and Mubarak Sani were charged with criminal conspiracy, abetment, defamation of character, obstruction of a public officer carrying out his duty, intentional insult, and incitement to violence. They plead guilty before judge Ibrahim Bello during their appearance before a senior magistrate court in Gyadi Gyadi, Kano. The pair were arrested after hosting a radio show on Wazobia FM on 6 February, where they alleged the government had forced parents to immunise their children against polio, claiming officials were abusing their power. Fagge and Sani have been granted bail with two sureties each at NGN 100, 000, on the condition the surities are community leaders or heads of department of government organisations. The case was adjourned until 13 March.

The post Index Index – international free speech round up 15/02/13 appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The case, brought by aspiring Conservative politician Payam Tamiz against Google*, hinged on whether or not Google was responsible for comments posted on a blog hosted on its Blogger blogging platform. Tamiz claimed to have been libelled by the “London Muslim” blog, which was hosted on the platform. He had approached Google to ask the blogger to remove the defamatory comments. After five weeks, Google did approach the blogger, asking him to delete the alleged slurs, which he duly did. But Tamiz continued to pursue a case against Google.

Tamiz initially lost his case, and, it should be noted, he lost his appeal this week too.

But the ruling on the appeal raises some interesting questions, and could pave the way for future actions against Internet Service Providers.

The key question seems to be what is a respectable time between being told of alleged defamatory publications, and actually becoming responsible for them.

Referring to Byrne v Deane, a 1937 case involving a defamatory note posted on a golf club notice board, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Richards, commented that “[...]it is in my view open to argument that the time taken was sufficiently long to leave room for an inference adverse to Google Inc on Byrne v Deane principles.

“The period during which Google Inc might fall to be treated on that basis as a publisher of the defamatory comments would be a very short one, but it means that the claim cannot in my view be dismissed on the ground that Google Inc was clearly not a publisher of the comments at all.”

The suggestion is that eventually, Google does become responsible for content.

This reads like a threat to the concept of “mere conduit”, the concept enshrined in the European Union e-Commerce Directive establishing that ISPs cannot be held responsible for content on third party blogs, Facebook updates, tweets etc.

That concept is increasingly coming under threat. Just recently, Belfast lawyer Paul Tweed suggested to the Guardian that companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter could be subject to “EU defamation cases”, in the courts in Ireland, where all three companies have major European bases.

Such a move could seriously threaten the way the web works. We rely on private ISPs to host our various interactions. Making them legally responsible for everything we post could lead to a situation where they severely narrow their terms of service, and even attempt to engage in some kind of censorship in order to avoid litigation. This shift in responsibility is not what the ISPs want, and certainly not what web users need.

*Google is one of Index on Censorship’s funders. Index’s editorial positions are independent of all its funders

The post London court ruling could have grave consequences for free speech online. appeared first on Index on Censorship.

An Indian soldier stands alert in Srinagar, Kashmir during a curfew to curb protest over the hanging of Afzal Guru

A politician in Azerbaijan has offered a cash reward to any person who finds and cuts of the ear of an author who wrote a book about the conciliation of Azeris and Armenians, it was reported on 12 February. Akram Aylisli’s book Stone Dreams has stirred up controversy for referencing Azerbaijan’s violence against Armenians during riots preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The party of Hafiz Haciyev, the head of a pro-government political group in Azerbaijan have offered 10,000 manat (£8,000) for the ear of the writer, as part of a sustained hate campaign against Haciyev. He has been expelled from the Union of Writers, had his presidential pension revoked and his wife and son have lost their jobs. Protestors around the country have burned books and effigies of Haciyev. As Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev approaches re-election later this year, the sustained negativity projected onto Haciyev is said to be a facade to hide the government’s internal issues amidst growing unrest.

Following protests in Kashmir over the execution of a man convicted of terrorism on 9 February, Kashmir’s internet and news outlets have been suppressed, and the entire Kashmir valley subjected to a strict curfew. Television channels and mobile internet were suspended immediately after Afzal Guru was hanged on 9 February. Local newspapers were forced to cease reporting the following day without warning — and have yet to be published since. Only the government, using state run service provider Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has access to the internet. Some residential districts of Srinagar reported to receive some TV news channels on 10 February, but privately-owned channels had to suspend news services at the request of the government. Afzal Guru’s execution in a New Delhi prison on 9 February prompted protests in three areas of India administered Kashmir, surrounding claims the men accused were given an unfair trial. Guru was sentenced to death for helping to plot a 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that left 14 people dead.

In Somalia, a journalist has been detained without charge for defending press freedom, after a woman who claimed she was raped and the journalist who interviewed her were imprisoned. Daud Abdi Daud remains in custody since 5 February, after he spoke out in a Mogadishu court against the one year jail sentence given to Abdiaziz Abdinuur and the alleged rape victim on 5 February. Daud Abdi said journalists should be able to interview who they wish, saying he would make attempts to interview the president’s wife, causing the police to arrest him. Daud Abdi was later transferred from police custody into Mogadishu Central Prison. On 6 February, the attorney general ordered his continued detention at the Police’s Central Investigation Department.

Carmarthenshire County Council’s decision to pursue a libel case using public funding has been criticised. The council’s chief executive Mark James appeared in London’s Royal Courts of Justice today (13 February) where he and blogger Jacqui Thompson are suing each other for defamation following a series of comments posted online. James’s costs were indemnified by the council after a controversial decision in 2008, allowing public money to be used to fund libel lawsuits. Carmarthenshire County Council is believed to be the only authority to allow this in the UK, and the Welsh Assembly has questioned its legality, after an order they made in 2006 forbade local authorities from offering indemnities in libel cases. Carmarthenshire County Council said they had relied upon section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than the 2006 law. The case likely to cost a six or seven figure sum, according to reports.

The post Index Index – International free speech round up 13/02/13 appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This is the sixth time we’ve released this data, and one trend has become clear: Government surveillance is on the rise.

• We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 14 search results for linking to sites that criticize the police and claim individuals were involved in obscuring crimes. We did not remove content in response to this request. In addition, we received a request from another local law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video for criticizing the agency of racism. We did not remove content in response to this request.
• The number of content removal requests we received increased by 98% compared to the previous reporting period

READ: Standing up to threats to digital freedom report [PDF]

The post Google report says government surveillance is on the rise appeared first on Index on Censorship.

 Protesters against anti-islamic film at the US Embassy in London (Demotix)

The controversy over “The Innocence Of Muslims” rumbles on, with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah calling on supporters to demonstrate throughout Lebanon this week.

Has this particular incident been different from previous blasphemy rows? In some ways, yes. Perhaps the most interesting was Google’s removal of the video from YouTube Egypt and Libya, independent of any court order. This should be of real concern to anyone concerned with freedom on the web. While Google-owned YouTube is not the only video sharing site, its dominance is such that it can severely restrict free speech should it wish.

To be fair to Google, it has refused requests to block the film in other jurisdictions. Australian Communications Minister Paul Conroy’s request that YouTube consider removing the video was met with a flat rejection. But Google has now left itself open to more demands to remove material, having set a precedent, no matter how exceptional the circumstances.  As Jillian C York of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written: “…by placing itself in the role of arbiter, Google is now vulnerable to demands from a variety of parties and will have to explain why it sees censorship as the right solution in some cases but not in others.”

This was also the first large scale controversy of this type since the Arab Spring, and many who had been keen to portray the popular uprisings across the Middle East as Islamist coups are using these events as vindication.

Certainly, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, effectively the ruling party, could have handled this much better. Its call for a mass protest on Friday (subsequently recalled as the situation escalated) was inappropriate, and instead the group should have moved to calm the situation, (listen to this BBC radio debate between me and Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Dr Hany Eldeeb) But President Morsi did at least manage to tread the line between criticising the film while condemning the violence.

But if we look at the attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan and the US consulate in Libya, it’s clear that these were launched by groups who would have attacked US interests regardless of the film controversy. There’s a certain amount of truth to the claim that there is more to the protests, riots and attacks than blasphemy alone.

For all that is new, this is a sadly familiar pattern. As with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, consciously provocative material created in the west was picked by extremists in the Middle East, and used to stoke up anger and anti-Western feeling.

We may now witness the emergence of a new argument for censorship: the traditional hate speech “incitement test” — that there must be a clear link between “words and deeds” — may come under re-examination. Is there a difference between comment published with the intent to incite violence and comment published with the intentional expectation that violence will result?

Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship

The post A new argument for censorship? appeared first on Index on Censorship.