EOTO - Reaction 5

Diana Manevskaya asks the question, "Web-site blocking: Blessing or evil?" I take the information that Diana presents in her Each One Teach One essay to heart because she not only offers an understanding of the political climate in Belarus, but gives a voice to this type of controversial issue. I believe that Web site blocking, in any form, is a serious violation of civil/human rights. It directly limits access to information that could be vital to the well-fare of people all over the world. At the same time, it stifles knowledge, free thinking, freedom of expression, competition and creativity. We should be thankful that we have organizations, such as Amnesty International, that are trying to win the fight for freedom. To be realistic, it's simply not enough. We need more people to get involved to help support the cause.

For me, I am enraged to think that a government could have full control over the type of information that I view or read on the internet. Of course, it's easy for me to take this kind of stance as a citizen of the United States, where it seems as thought the sky is the limit in terms of online accessibility. How often am I unaware or blinded by my own privileges? But as Diana pointed out, even the U.S. exerts its own type of power on regulating sexual content on the internet. If I've said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: If you limit access to something just because it contains information of a sexual nature, you could be limiting access to Web sites that offer important information about breast cancer or Web sites that offer support to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. This IS a political issue.

Web site blocking is not something that should be taken lightly in any country. As Diana pointed out, how could we possibly determine who should make these types of decisions, on what/who's values should these decision be based, and what is the measure for damaging information?