Abstract
Internet blocking is no longer a tool wielded only by authoritarian regimes, but one also commonly employed by liberal democracies. In the last decade, access restrictions have become the go-to policy solution where enforcing content regulation is difficult such as child pornography, copyright infringement, or online gambling. In liberal democracies, Internet blocking takes the shape of self-, co-, or state regulation, as well as combinations of these forms. Content restrictions lie at the intersection of various constitutional rights and principles, and honoring this delicate balance seems easiest through the democratic accountability inherent in formal legislation. However, many other regulatory schemes have emerged from completely private self-regulation by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as the UK’s Cleanfeed system, to hybrid public–private partnerships in the shape of co-regulatory arrangements used in Germany or Scandinavia. As of 2015, most liberal democracies have introduced access restrictions through one or more of these three regulatory modes. But what explains their diversity and their systematic variation across countries? This chapter builds on insights generated in a larger research project on “Net Blocking in Liberal Democracies.” Its first part provides an empirical introduction to the topic by looking at Internet blocking in 21 liberal democracies. Next, we provide an analysis of factors influencing whether democracies erect access impediments. We point out some common driving forces and obstacles, partially building on Lijphart’s typology of democracies. Lastly, we discuss the results with a special view towards topics of democratic theory such as “embedded democracy” and “crisis of democracy.”
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
More about the OpenNet Initiative and the results of its research can be found at opennet.net. On the history of ONI, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenNet_Initiative (last accessed Dec 13, 2016).
- 3.
- 4.
More information on the program at liberationtechnology.stanford.edu (last accessed Dec 13, 2016). The text by Diamond (2010) can be seen as a programmatic manifesto of this approach.
- 5.
See Bundestag printed matter 16/13411, at dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/134/1613411.pdf (last accessed: Dec 13, 2016).
- 6.
See Bundestag printed matter 17/6644, at dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/066/1706644.pdf (last accessed: Dec 13, 2016).
- 7.
The project was conducted between 2012 and 2015 in the research cluster Digital Humanities within the Göttingen Center for Digital Humanities (GCDH) at the University of Göttingen. A deeper analysis of some points touched upon in this chapter can be found in Breindl et al. (2015); more about the project at www.gcdh.de/en/projects/tp2-ins/politics/ (last accessed: Dec 13, 2016).
- 8.
Whether internet pioneers and enthusiasts had truly overlooked this fact, or whether their attitudes were so deeply shaped by the idea of freedom of speech that they did not deem it significant, would surely merit its own study.
- 9.
The project collected and analyzed official documents and law digests, among other sources. Further information about the 33 regulation systems that the study is based on can be found in Annex A1 of Breindl et al. (2015). The cases are focused on regulatory systems with universal prevalence for internet access in a country. Individual cases of access restrictions are not considered, such as those imposed by court orders, or the practices of individual companies (such as Google or Facebook). Such cases are not the product of state intervention, and are thus much less problematic from a political and normative viewpoint than the cases discussed here.
- 10.
The relationship between both components can vary greatly in this case; it ranges from cooperation on equal footing between the actors at one end of the spectrum to the private side acting under the “shadow of hierarchy” at the other. However, such differences are of secondary importance for this study.
- 11.
The term “child pornographic material” is employed here because of its widespread use. However, the term is not entirely accurate in capturing the problem, which would better be described as a form of child abuse that is organized and documented through media.
- 12.
The countries included in this analysis are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
- 13.
For a much more detailed account of our methodological approach and the empirical results of the regressions summarized here, see Breindl et al. (2015, p. 19).
- 14.
With a nod to Aldous Huxley, the name of the system appeals to citizens’ understanding of cleanliness and works to counter possible resistance to its introduction.
References
Armingeon K, Knöpfel L, Weisstanner D, Engler S (2014) Comparative political data set I 1960-2012. Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Bern
Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace, abrufbar unter: www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence, letzter Zugriff: 13.12.2016
Breindl Y, Briatte F (2013) Digital network repertoires and the contentious politics of digital copyright in France and the European Union. Policy Internet 5:27–55
Breindl Y, Theiner P, Busch A (2015) Internet blocking regulations: a comparative analysis of 21 liberal democracies. Paper presented at the 111th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, Sept 4–7, 2015, abrufbar unter: www.researchgate.net/publication/283854458, letzter Zugriff: 13.12.2016
Busch A (2010) Kontinuität statt Wandel: Die Innen- und Rechtspolitik der Großen Koalition. In: Egle C, Zohlnhöfer R (Hrsg.) Die zweite Große Koalition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 401–430
Busch A (2016) Das Internet als Untersuchungsgegenstand. In: Busch A, Breindl Y, Jakobi T (eds) Netzpolitik. Ein einführender Überblick. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. (im Erscheinen)
Clinton H (2010) Remarks on internet freedom, abrufbar unter: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
Dahl RA (1989) Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press, New Haven
Deibert RJ, Palfrey JG, Rohozinski R, Zittrain J (eds) (2008) Access denied: the practice and policy of global internet filtering. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Diamond L (2010) Liberation technology. J Democr 21:69–83
Downing JDH, Brooten L (2007) ICTs and political movements. In: Mansell R, Avgerou C, Quah D, Silverstone R (eds) The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 537–560
Drezner DW (2004) The global governance of the internet: bringing the state back in. Polit Sci Q 119:477–498
Drezner DW (2007) All politics is global: explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Dutton WH (ed) (2013) The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Elmer-Dewitt P (1993) First nation in cyberspace: Twenty million strong and adding a million new users a month, the Internet is suddenly the place to be. Time Mag 49:62–64
Farrell H (2012) The consequences of the internet for politics. Annu Rev Polit Sci 15:35–52
Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York
Hofmann J (2012) Et in arcadia ego: from techno-utopia to cybercrime. In: Margetts H, Perri 6, Hood C (eds) Paradoxes of modernization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–100
Leggewie C, Maar C (1998) Internet and Politik: Von der Zuschauer- zur Beteiligungsdemokratie? Bollmann, Köln
Levi-Faur D (2011) Regulation and regulatory governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) Handbook on the politics of regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Lijphart A (2012) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries, 2nd Aufl. Yale University Press, New Haven
Margetts H (2013) The internet and democracy. In: Dutton WH (ed) The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 421–437
McIntyre TJ (2013) Child abuse images and cleanfeeds: assessing internet blocking systems. In: Brown I (ed) Research handbook on governance of the internet. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 277–308
Merkel W (2004) Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization 11:33–58
Merkel W (2015a) Ist die Krise der Demokratie eine Erfindung? In: Merkel W (Hrsg) Demokratie und Krise. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, pp 473–498
Merkel W (ed) (2015b) Demokratie und Krise: Zum schwierigen Verhältnis von Theorie und Empirie. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden
OpenNet Initiative (2012) Global internet filtering map, abrufbar unter: map.opennet.net/filtering-pol.html, letzter Zugriff am 13.12.2016
Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play: actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
Schnabel C (2009) Das Zugangserschwerungsgesetz – Zum Access-Blocking als ultima ratio des Jugendschutzes. Juristenzeitung JZ 64:996–1001
Schwanholz J, Busch A (2016) “Like” Parlament? Die Nutzung von Social Media durch Unterhaus und Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 10(S2):15–39
Shirky C (2008) Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Books, New York, NY
Siedschlag A, Rogg A, Welzel C (2002) Digitale Demokratie: Willensbildung und Partizipation per Internet. Leske + Budrich, Opladen
Varadharajan V (2010) Internet filtering - issues and challenges. IEEE Secur Priv 8:62–65
Wagner A, Kneip S (2015) Demokratische Gefahr für die Demokratie? Die prekäre Balance von Sicherheit und Freiheit. In: Merkel W (ed) Demokratie und Krise. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, pp 339–372
Zeidler S (2005) Zensur im Internet. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte: 33–38
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Busch, A., Theiner, P., Breindl, Y. (2018). Internet Censorship in Liberal Democracies: Learning from Autocracies?. In: Schwanholz, J., Graham, T., Stoll, PT. (eds) Managing Democracy in the Digital Age. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61708-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61708-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61707-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61708-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)