19th May, 2007.
From the BBC News website on Friday 18th May, 2007 comes the following report, which we have edited:
'The level of state-led censorship of the net is growing around the world,
a study of so-called internet filtering by the Open Net Initiative
suggests.
The study of thousands of websites across 120 Internet Service Providers
found 25 of 41 countries surveyed showed evidence of content filtering.
...Such "state-mandated net filtering" was only being carried out in "a
couple" of states in 2002, one researcher said.
"In five years we have gone from a couple of states doing state-mandated
net filtering to 25," said John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School.
Mr Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and
Society, added: "There has also been an increase in the scale, scope and
sophistication of internet filtering." ....The filtering had three primary
rationales, according to the report: politics and power, security concerns
and social norms. ...The report said: "In a growing number of states around
the world, internet filtering has huge implications for how connected
citizens will be to the events unfolding around them, to their own cultures,
and to other cultures and shared knowledge around the world." ..."Few states
restrict their activities to one type of content," said Rafal Rohozinski,
Research Fellow of the Cambridge Security Programme.
He added: "Once filtering is begun, it is applied to a broad range of
content and can be used for expanding government control of cyberspace.
"Cyberspace has become a strategic forum of competition between states, as
well as between citizens and states." Mr Palfrey said the report was an
attempt to shine a spotlight on filtering to make it more transparent.
"What's regrettable about net filtering is that almost always this is
happening in the shadows. There's no place you can get an answer as a citizen
from your state about how they are filtering and what is being filtered."'
End of quote.
Of course, until quite recently the internet has been very open, but those of us who use it to preach the gospel can expect increasing curbs to be placed on our activities in an increasingly anti-Christian modern West.
There has long been a need for pornographic websites to be taken off the 'net' and most of us would welcome moves to get these evil people restricted in what they can do but I have no doubt that, as time progresses, evangelistic Christian sites will also be scrutinized for content which could offend so-called "religious liberty."
Of course, those who make a pitch about protecting "religious liberty" are invariably irreligious liberals who would ban all Christian evangelising tomorrow if they could.
Make no mistake: Those of us who have built an evangelistic presence on the net are - even now - being watched by government internet 'watchdogs' - there is no doubt in my mind about that! Yet we probably still have a few more years comparative freedom to preach the gospel 'without fear or favour' on the net. My personal opinion in mid-2007 is that, here in Europe, we might have 2-3 years left of internet gospel freedom. In the States you probably have much longer than that. Of course, this is no sort of 'prophecy' but just how things appear to currently stand.
In Europe the EEC is increasingly moving to uphold secularism and anti-religious liberals are presently in full control so I expect anti-Christian moves to gather momentum. The British government is meekly going along with this and, in fact, continually moves forward its own anti-religious agenda (which is really an anti-Christian agenda). It is now illegal, for instance, for Christian hoteliers to refuse to let homosexual 'couples' hire a hotel room, and Christians working in the Social Services are now having to find other employment because of being pressurized to refuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Freedom of speech is being increasingly undermined and many of us expect moves to make it illegal to criticize abortion on moral or religious grounds very soon.
The Christian Hawk, May, 2007.