Summary
1. The primary mission of corporations is to make profits for their shareholders. 2. It is not to “protect freedom of expression” around the world, as stated by the subcommittee chairman in the recent hearing. 3. While large corporations should be expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards possible, they are not responsible for the actions of repressive regimes.
Analysis
In the history of the world, there has never been a more powerful means of shining a great light on atrocities and human rights violations than the Internet. Meddling by the U.S. government and forcing companies, including Google, Cisco Systems, and Yahoo to jump through hoops in conducting business will only make it harder for oppressed people to have the potential to communicate their circumstances to the rest of the world.
These types of Congressional hearings are really about legislators for their own political gain trying to convince Americans that corporations are inherently malevolent. Hence the promise by the subcommittee chairman in his opening statement that [i]n future hearings, we will explore the impact of Corporate America on other fundamental human rights.” He points to the worst kinds of inflammatory rhetoric from thugs like “Cuban Telecommunications Minister, Ramiro Valdes [who] said in February 2007 that the Internet was a ‘tool for global extermination.’” Just to state the obvious, any “tool” can be used for good or for evil.
Regulations imposed by the federal government involving the Internet is only going to dissuade innovation because of the artificial obstacles that will be placed in the way. The free market will “develop…technology that allows users to break through firewalls and avoid censorship.”
The original source states that” [Senator ]Durbin…criticized the ‘intolerably slow’ negotiations by Internet, tech and telecom firms, along with rights groups, that have worked for almost two years on a code of conduct for business dealings with repressive governments.” But if “you can't have a straight-line policy [just] in China,” how can you do it in including 26 other countries?
Saints do not run corporations. It is possible for firms to inadvertently and indirectly provide the means for oppressive acts by dictatorial governments. And there has to be a bare minimum of accountability regarding crossing ethical boundaries – such as a search engine previously “turning over personal data” to a tyrannical state. But companies in general are not the ones to be blamed for the merciless actions by others. And it is not fair and not prudent to punish an entire industry that is providing by far the best mechanism in the history of the world to widely expose crimes to humanity.
