George,
No, that's cool. No point talking past each other, I agree. I'd be interested to hear more about Pakistan - perhaps a new thread?
I think you flag up a very crucial point: between the theory and practice and censorship, where are we? It seems to me that a good starting point is the various international human rights conventions to which most countries are signatory or have ratified.
For example, the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). It allows for 'individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly'. It also offers 'protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination' and codifies the right to engage in political activities.
Liberal theory would also protect these rights as long as they do not infringe upon those same rights as possessed by others. This is actually very similar to certain US constitutional protections and exemptions as mentioned by Blackjack below (for which, thanks for the post!).
Blackjack also makes the very pertinent observation that 'hate speech' laws in Europe simply don't wash in the US. These laws are often used in ways for which neither the original legislation intended nor which are true to the international rights framework. When Drew originally posted my Ubiwar story about YouTube users in the UK being twitchier than most web users this is part of the same phenomenon. It's almost a case of: we'll try and apply this legislation to anything we don't like. Hence my comment about Islamist forums.
The difference is that YouTube are capitulating to takedown requests on material that it's really not designed to deal with. Most YouTube spats do not make it to court in the UK, so the laws that actually do protect people are rarely tested. In Europe more generally ###-for-tat legal battles do take place, and these cases degenerate into slanging matches that last for years.
I should make the point that there are 'vigilante' YouTube groups who make it their business to try and remove any video of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of content or context. YouTube often complies, and these group brag about their glorious role in the 'war on terror'. Puerile and pointless.
Anyway, practice vs theory. In practice, censorship is often knee-jerk. Something happens and governments and communities suddenly decide that 'something must be done', regardless of any legal or human rights considerations. No cost-benefit analysis, no overrarching strategy, nothing. Just mutterings about security, radicalisation, terrorism and the assumption that someone viewing an IED explosion on video is a hollow shell inevitably to be filled with violence. Sure, there are some who are this passive but most net-actors are exactly that, active consumers of information and capable of making their own minds up. Not all, unfortunately, although it's still only a very small minority.
All this speaks of complexities that fill whole books and policy documents, as well as the long careers of many academics. We can only scratch the surface here...
Tim
Bookmarks