互联网自由（Internet freedom）.docVIP

互联网自由（Internet freedom） Different countries and societies have different definitions of Internet freedom. Although some authoritarian government distorts the word to suit itself, many other differences around the meaning of the word are justified and are due to values. The author of this article points out that we should respect the values that lead to certain decisions. Derek? Bauer York (Derek Bambauer) in the New York Broolyn law school (Brooklyn Law School in New), Professor of Internet law and intellectual property law. He also writes blog Info/Law on online legal issues. This article was published in the July 2010 issue of the American Electronic Journal (eJournal USA), defining Freedom Internet (Defining). Literally or verbally, everyone supports Internet freedom. However, in different countries and cultures, the meaning of freedom is very different. When weighing with other interests, its weight is not the same. This divergence of norms is reflected in the debate about Internet rights, threats to freedom, online content control and government management. In short, the concept of Internet freedom itself contains a series of contradictions about what the Internet should do. Frankly admitting these contradictions is better than holding on to the wording, leading to ignoring the inevitable and difficult choices. First, no matter how you define it, being able to access the Internet is a prerequisite for enjoying the freedom of the internet. However, there are differences in the question of whether individuals have access to the internet. Some countries see the use of the Internet, especially the use of high-speed broadband, as a right, while other countries see it as a privilege. Finland, for example, claims that Internet access to 1MB is one of the basic human rights of Finland citizens. Similarly, the French Constitutional Council has declared that the use of the Internet is a statutory right. By contrast, the United States regards the Internet as a normal mark