1. Internet freedom
and development.
A qualitative study of internet freedom and Sweden’s global
importance with respect to internet freedom issues.

3. Internet freedom
and development.
A qualıtatıve study of ınternet freedom
and Sweden’s global ımportance wıth
respect to ınternet freedom ıssues.
The Swedish Institute & United Minds, 2013

4. 2
Table of contents.
The report in brief
3
Foreword 4
Internet freedom and development –
an issue that concerns Sweden
5
Aims & methodology
6
Aims
Definition of topic
Methodology
Selection of countries
Selection of respondents and the
conduct of interviews
People interviewed
6
6
6
6
6
7
Summary 8
The impact of the internet
8
Internet freedom in different countries –
an overview of knowledge
8
OpenNet Initiative – internet filtering
in selected countries
9
The countries studied
10
Egypt
10
India
10
China
11
Pakistan
11
Russia
12
US
12
Country comparison
12
The view of internet censorship
13
The internet as a channel of influence
17
New phenomenon with great potential 17
What topics can be discussed
17
What advocacy work is being carried out
today
18
The view of Sweden and internet freedom
21
21
21
21
22
22
An unknown role model
Not as polarising as the US
Finland a role model for Russia
Sweden and WikiLeaks
Sweden a positive surprise
The countries’ needs and Sweden’s
importance 23
Encouraging increased internet use
Training internet users, journalists
and activists
Countering censorship and the blocking
of websites
Protecting individuals and countering
surveillance
Legal assistance
Exchanges with internet activists
Information in other languages
Encouraging international dialogue
Taking advantage of existing projects
Raising the profile of Sweden and
the Nordic countries
23
Conclusions and recommendations
26
26
26
26
27
Our involvement is desired
Sweden can raise its profile
The internet is a superior channel
Working together makes us stronger
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
Appendix 28
Links to organisations and individuals
that monitor internet freedom
in different parts of the world
Egypt
India
China
Pakistan
Russia
US
28
29
32
35
38
41
44

5. 3
The report ın brıef.
The present study examines internet freedom and development in six selected countries: Egypt, India, China,
Pakistan, Russia and the US. These countries were chosen
because they have numerous internet users and because in
some respects they set precedents in terms of restricting
online privacy and freedom of expression.
The study is based on a research review of existing reports
on internet freedom and on in-depth interviews with selected experts and internet activists in the six countries
concerned.
The internet has helped enhance freedom of expression by
extending access to information and significantly widening the scope for citizens to express their views. At the same
time, however, there is a tendency for regimes to attempt to
gain control of this open arena for the dissemination of information and the exchange of ideas – which the internet
partly represents – through censorship, surveillance,
r
­ estrictive laws, filtering and other methods.
Sweden has a strong tradition of freedom of expression and
transparency and is also one of the most mature countries
in the world with respect to information and communication technology (ICT). Internet freedom is a priority issue
in Swedish foreign policy. However, this study indicates that
Sweden’s position on issues regarding internet freedom and
development is neither widely known nor recognised.
It is clear that Sweden needs to raise its profile and intensify
its strategic communication efforts around these issues.
The assistance the respondents in the study are seeking includes training for internet users and constructive examples
illustrating the advantages of a free, uncensored internet. A
further measure would be the provision of technical equipment able to reduce the risk of surveillance and protect the
identity of internet users.
The internet is an important means of influence in all the
countries studied. According to the respondents, it can,
with some exceptions, be used to discuss issues involving
human rights, development and the fight against poverty,
innovation and security.
The study provides a basis for the further development of
the Swedish Institute’s activities as well as for communicating Swedish efforts around issues involving internet freedom and security. Sweden’s influence can be exercised via a
number of channels. Among the Swedish Institute’s major –
and vital – tasks is to facilitate this and encourage stakeholder collaboration.

6. 4
Foreword.
Sweden’s importance at international level is contingent on
three factors:
development. This, combined with Sweden’s long-standing
tradition of freedom of expression, provides a fitting foundation for active international engagement in these issues.
First: The world’s needs. What are the critical issues?
Second: Our comparative advantages. In what areas can we
provide know-how?
Third: A common language. Is there a shared view of the
challenges and opportunities?
Where Sweden’s experience matches the needs of the world
and common ground is found in dialogue, conditions are
conducive to development both in Sweden and in other
countries.
Internet freedom and development incorporate all three
factors.
Sweden has been a pioneer in creating conditions for a
connected country thanks to a well-developed infrastructure and nationwide investment in digitalisation. Access to
high-speed internet in practically all parts of the country
and for all segments of the population has ensured high figures for internet use, transparency and innovation by international standards. Sweden thus enjoys extensive experience in terms of the scope and importance of the internet
in public discourse, innovation and social and economic
Internet freedom ranks high on the world’s agenda. Recent
years have shown the dynamic potential of digital communication. And with a young generation actively establishing
contacts globally, bridging national borders and cultural
differences, we are witnessing the creation of a shared view
of challenges and opportunities – a new, common dialogue.
For the Swedish Institute (SI), internet freedom and digital
communication clearly form part of the broad narrative of
our country. Understanding and working on these issues is
an important element in developing lasting relations built
on trust with future opinion formers and decision-makers in
developing countries and emerging economies. Finally, it is
a way for individuals and institutions in our partner countries to develop competence, know-how and cooperation.
The purpose of this study, undertaken in collaboration with
United Minds at the request of the SI, is to enhance and disseminate knowledge of these issues and lay the groundwork
for developing activities, both by SI employees and other
Swedes engaged in this area. The study raises a number of
potential issues, on which the SI looks forward to continued
collaboration with Sweden’s Missions Abroad, other public
sector bodies, civil society and the business community.
Annika Rembe,
Director-General, Swedish Institute

7. 5
Internet freedom and development
– an ıssue of concern to Sweden.
In just a few decades, the internet has completely changed
the world. It has dramatically increased people’s opportunities to obtain knowledge, voice opinions, and exchange
ideas – including across national borders – all at a hitherto
unprecedented speed. The effect has been to confer potential political power on anyone with internet access.
The shifts in power that have taken place across the globe
as a result of increased internet access are a pivotal issue
for organisations and individuals that work to bring about
change in government, business and civil society. It may
seem obvious enough to us that freedom of expression is
desirable and indeed essential in a democratic society and
that no further justification is needed. Testing differing
views against one another is beneficial to the development
of society. Free access to information and the free exchange
of views promote innovation and democratic development.
But for rulers in some countries, the free arena for the exchange of ideas that internet freedom allows poses a growing threat. Serious efforts are therefore being made to restrict internet freedom. This is an alarming development,
especially in view of the increasing difficulty in distinguishing between ‘digital’ and ‘analogue’ spheres.
This study examines six countries from the perspective of
internet freedom, to what extent they allow the free flow
of information and ideas online and respect user privacy.
The countries were chosen in part because they are large
and strategically important for internet freedom. In some
respects, they can set trends for other countries in terms of
restricting privacy and freedom of expression online.
There are a number of organisations and individuals that
seek to promote internet freedom in the countries studied.
The conditions for promoting internet freedom in these
countries vary, depending on the status of civil society and
the independence of the business community vis-à-vis the
state. In most cases, however, authorities attempt to control
and curtail freedom of expression through restrictive laws
and other methods.
Internet freedom and development are a priority issue in
Swedish foreign, development and trade policy. This is
natural given Sweden’s strong tradition of transparency,
freedom of expression and innovation, some of the cornerstones of what we call the Swedish social model.
Today the internet is a vital tool in virtually all work involving international relations and policy. This is particularly
true of priority issues for Sweden, such as human rights,
development, the fight against poverty, innovation and
security.
One aim of this report is to facilitate a greater understanding of Sweden’s importance globally to internet freedom
issues. Some key findings from our work are that Sweden’s
involvement is widely desired and that we as a country need
to raise our profile. People who are fighting for internet
freedom and development around the world need to know
that they have our support.
Javeria Rizvi Kabani (SI)
Jonas Hellman (United Minds)

8. 6
Aıms & methodology.
Aims
This study is intended to provide a description of internet
freedom in a selection of countries and of the conditions
necessary to enhance this freedom. It identifies needs in
the context of internet freedom in the six countries concerned and discusses Sweden’s significance in this regard.
The report provides an analytical basis for the development of SI activities and efforts to enhance Sweden’s image
abroad, with particular focus on human rights, development and the fight against poverty, innovation and security.
Definition
Internet freedom is defined as the free flow of information
and ideas online – freedom of expression and the absence
of censorship, and respect for the privacy of individuals.
Methodology
The study is based on a research review of existing reports
on internet freedom, plus qualitative, in-depth interviews
with people with extensive knowledge about internet freedom in the selected countries.
Selection of countries
The six countries chosen for this study are all relevant from
the perspective of internet freedom. The three countries
in the world with the most internet users overall are China,
the US and India. Russia also has a relatively large internet
population. Egypt and Pakistan are both sizeable countries,
where issues involving internet freedoms have recently
been the subject of extensive discussion.
Five of the six countries chosen are among those accorded
geographic priority by the Swedish Foreign Ministry as part
of its promotion of Sweden.
Pakistan, the only exception, is nonetheless interesting
from the standpoint of internet freedom. Although the US
is not comparable to the other countries in this regard, it
has been included as a reference country since it is often
mentioned in discussions of issues involving freedom of
expression online.
Selection of respondents and conduct of
interviews
Three experts were chosen as respondents from each of the
priority countries. The aim in selecting the interviewees
was to ensure an accurate, broad, up-to-date picture of
internet freedom in the countries concerned. A total of
18 qualitative interviews were conducted on Skype in the
period February-April 2013. These semi-structured interviews were based on a number of prepared questions.
As the respondents were encouraged to give open-ended
answers, these varied in length, depending on their interest
and level of knowledge.
On average, each interview lasted 60 minutes. In some cases,
these were later supplemented with additional questions
in order to clear up any uncertainties and provide a more
complete picture. Five of the people interviewed were bloggers and internet activists, five worked for organisations
concerned with internet freedom, three were employed in
other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), two were
academics, two were journalists and one was an IT entrepreneur.
The questions fell into the following general areas: 1) the internet and social development, 2) the internet and privacy,
3) the internet and freedom of expression, 4) the impact of
the work of NGOs, and 5) Sweden and internet freedom.
In China, all the respondents chose to remain anonymous
so that they could speak freely. One of the Russian interviewees also chose to remain anonymous for the same reason. All the interviews were conducted in English.

9. 7
People interviewed
Egypt
Pakistan
Nadine Sherif, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies,
www.cihrs.org
Murtaza Zaidi, IT entrepreneur, www.cybervision.com.pk
Nasry Esmat, journalist, www.twitter.com/nasry
Shahzad Ahmad, Bytes for All,
www.content.bytesforall.pk
Sana Saleem, blogger and internet freedom activist,
www.sanasaleem.com
Ramy Raoof, blogger and activist, ebfhr.blogspot.com
Russia
US
Oksana Chelysheva, journalist and activist,
www.mirror_wolfe.livejournal.com
Alan Rosenblatt, Internet Advocacy Roundtable,
www.internetadvocacycenter.com/education/roundtable.html
Ilya Stechkin, Moscow State University,
www.moscowstate.academia.edu/IlyaStechkin
Josh Levy, Free Press, www.freepress.net
Anonymous, NGO
Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.eff.org
China
India
Anonymous, NGO
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet & Society,
www.cis-india.org
Anonymous, blogger
Anonymous, researcher
Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project and blogger,
www.internetdemocracy.in, www.twitter.com/anjakovacs
Alok Dixit, Save Your Voice, activist, www.saveyourvoice.in

10. 8
Summary.
The impact of the internet
The number of internet users around the world is growing
rapidly. According to statistics produced by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), internet users now
make up almost a third of the global population. The rise in
the number of users is largely taking place in non-Western
countries. China is the country with the highest number of
users overall, followed by the US and India.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is a collective term for the opportunities created by advances in
data technology and telecommunication. The increase in
internet use is a result of ICT development, and growing
numbers of people now have internet access via their mobile phones.
As is well known, the internet has greatly expanded access
to information and made it easier for people to communicate with one another. This not only involves text messages but also, increasingly, images, music and videos. The
internet has immense potential impact, not merely on social
and economic development but also in the political sphere.
Transparency and freedom of expression are growing; as a
result old power structures are being challenged and new
ones are coming into being.
During the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’, the internet helped topple unpopular regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.1 In Egypt the Mubarak
regime tried to shut down the internet to prevent protests from
spreading. This authoritarian strategy did not work.
It is clear that the internet can contribute to advances in democracy and greater freedom of expression, which explains
why today ICT is regarded as a strategic tool in Swedish
development cooperation. Gaining an overview of internet
freedom in different countries, in addition to an understanding of the extent to which the internet can be used as a
tool to influence issues is thus a priority for Sweden. However, traditional media still play a crucial role in advocacy
work in the spheres of information and opinion formation.
1 Philip N Howard m fl (2011), Opening Closed Regimes. What
was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?, Project
on Information Technology and Political Islam, University of
Washington
Internet freedom in different countries –
a knowledge overview
A growing number of organisations and individuals actively monitor internet freedom in different countries. Most of
these are based in the US, but their number elsewhere is on
the increase. This monitoring involves a range of approaches.
Some actors focus on human rights and view the internet as
an important instrument for freedom of expression. One of
the most well-established organisations using this approach
is Freedom House, headquartered outside Boston in the US.
For the past two years, Freedom House has published detailed
reports on ‘freedom on the net’, classifying different countries
into three broad categories: Free, Partly Free or Not Free.
The 2012 report noted that many countries have taken measures to restrict internet freedom. The methods of control
used have become increasingly sophisticated and harder
to detect. Unfortunately, there are also many examples of
politically motivated internet surveillance, brutal attacks
intended to silence bloggers and activists, proactive manipulation of web content and the introduction of restrictive laws
regulating freedom of expression online.
According to Freedom House, China is a trendsetter in
terms of attempting to control the internet. A growing number of countries are following in China’s footsteps and trying to imitate the apparently successful methods used by the
Chinese state.
The NGO Reporters Without Borders publishes an annual
overview of attempts by countries to control the internet. In
its 2013 special edition on surveillance, five countries were
identified as ‘state enemies’ of the internet: Bahrain, Iran,
China, Syria and Vietnam. These five were highlighted by
the organisation because they are involved in “active, intrusive surveillance of news providers, resulting in grave violations of freedom of information and human rights”.
Regarding China, Reporters Without Borders writes that the
Chinese Communist Party runs “one of the biggest digital
empires, if not the biggest”. In China, all ICT infrastructure
is controlled by the Chinese state, and anyone wanting an internet connection has to rent broadband access from a stateowned company. The tools put in place by the Chinese state

11. 9
to filter and monitor the internet are collectively known as
the Great Firewall of China.
China jails more people involved in news and information
than any other country. In early 2103, 30 journalists and
69 internet activists in China were in prison, according to the
organisation.
OpenNet Initiative – internet filtering in
selected countrie
Some organisations have adopted a more technical approach
and monitor the types of information different countries
filter out online, or the technical tools they use to carry out
censorship and surveillance. Among these is the OpenNet
Initiative (ONI), whose activities include identifying countries where social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are completely or partially blocked. ONI’s monitoring shows, among
other things, that four of the countries examined in this study
– China, Pakistan, India and Russia – filter the internet to
control some information. However, there are significant degrees of variation among countries, as shown in Figure 1.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organisation headquartered in San Francisco in the US, adopts a
more legalistic approach. EFF uses law as an instrument to
defend an open, free internet. Among the respondents interviewed by United Minds in order to gather data for this
Figure 1. Filtering of information online in the countries investigated according to ONI (2012).
Political issues
Social issues
Conflict/security
Internet tools,
e.g. social media
Egypt
India
1)
China
2)
Pakistan
Russia
US
1)
2)
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. blocked
YouTube periodically blocked
No evidence of
filtering
Selective
filtering
Substantial
filtering

12. 10
study, was Jillian York, Director of International Freedom
of Expression. She ranked the six countries in the study, on
the basis of restrictions on internet freedom, as follows:
1) China, 2) Pakistan, 3) India, 4) Russia, 5) Egypt, 6) the US.
A good deal is known about the level of internet freedom in
different countries and the methods authorities use to restrict the spread of information online. Although methods of
curtailing freedom online are always evolving, closer monitoring of countries attempting to restrict internet freedom
is also taking place.
Although attention is focused particularly on countries
with the greatest restrictions on internet freedom – especially China – there is detailed information available on
most countries in terms of internet use and what restrictions are involved. A more extensive list of organisations
and individuals engaged in monitoring internet freedom in
different countries may be found in the Appendix.
This report’s main contributions to existing research work
are to provide an understanding of how the countries concerned view internet freedom, the role of the rest of the
world in internet freedom issues, what Sweden can do to encourage advances, and in what issues the internet serves as
a channel of influence in the various countries.
The countries studied
Six countries, all relevant from the standpoint of internet
freedom, were studied. Interviews were conducted with
three respondents from each country, selected on the basis of their in-depth knowledge of internet freedom and
its development in their respective country. More detailed
findings regarding the countries are available through the
Swedish Institute. Below is a brief summary of the state of
affairs with regard to internet freedom in the countries
examined.
Egypt
Up until January 2011, Egypt only blocked a few websites.
Expanding the ICT infrastructure had been part of the
Mubarak regime’s strategy to generate growth and create
new jobs. According to Freedom House (2012), the regime
spied on the opposition and spread propaganda online, but
there was no extensive internet censorship.
The role the internet played in the fall of the Mubarak regime led to a sharp increase in interest in social media.
“Before the revolution, the security forces used to
monitor what activists did online. What’s stopping
them today is that they don’t have enough capacity;
they are busy with other problems.”
Nasry Esmat, Egypt
Over ten million Facebook accounts were registered in
Egypt in late 2011, placing it among the top twenty countries
with the largest number of Facebook users. The internet is an
increasingly important channel for news in Egypt, and 87 per
cent of the population regard it as important to have a free internet with no censorship (Pew Research Center, 2012).
After the revolution, the security forces kept existing surveillance equipment in place and continued to monitor people
they suspected. This led to more activists and bloggers being
threatened, assaulted and put on trial in 2011 and 2012 for allegedly disturbing the peace.
The journalist Nasry Esmat stated that the security forces
before the revolution usually monitored what activists did
online. “What’s stopping them today is that they don’t have
enough capacity; they are busy with other problems.”
Blogger and activist Ramy Raoof: “The government likes to
gather all kinds of information it can collect, whether there
is or isn’t reason. But they don’t exercise censorship in the
sense that they block websites and make them inaccessible –
we haven’t seen that.”
India
India is the largest democracy in the world. Though public
discourse is lively in many respects, this does not preclude
those governing the country from trying to restrict freedom
of expression online, and laws have been introduced to allow arbitrary internet censorship. India is the only country
in the study where laws make it easier to practise censorship
online than in traditional media.

13. Summary
In the respondents’ view, India’s laws are regrettable from
the standpoints of internet freedom and legal security. According to Jillian York of EEC, this, combined with other
attempts to restrict freedom of expression, means that internet freedom is in a weaker state in India than in countries like Russia and Egypt.
“Censorship has been used as an instrument
against social and religious conflicts. Freedom of
expression is restricted for some groups by prohibiting them from speaking ill of one another.”
Anja Kovacs, India
A number of organisations in India are working to expand
online freedom of expression. Despite a general belief in
India that freedom of expression is desirable, people are
traditionally more accepting of censorship than in the West.
Censorship is used in part as an instrument to defuse religious and social conflicts. However, the people United
Minds interviewed in India do not agree that restrictions on
freedom of expression are warranted.
China
China is the country with the most advanced system for internet censorship and surveillance. Despite over 500 million
internet users – more than any other country – the regime
has succeeded in maintaining strict control over the flow of
information. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders identified
China as a ‘state enemy of the internet’, based on the online
surveillance carried out by the state.
In practice, online freedom of expression in China is very
restricted, especially on political issues. One of the people
United Minds interviewed in China – a blogger – reported
that he was visited ten times by the police for something he
had written online.
“They order you to delete what you have written,
and if you don’t do it, they’ll shut down your website. They can threaten you by saying your family
will be harmed or that you’ll lose your job.”
Anonymous, China
Self-censorship is an important factor in the system. The
risk of sanction deters people from discussing sensitive is-
11
sues. The interviewees nevertheless maintain that the surveillance system is not comprehensive. It is not possible in
practice to monitor everything said online. On the whole,
the internet has contributed to greater freedom of expression in China as the limits to what people are permitted
to say are constantly stretched. Access to information has
increased dramatically, and 93 per cent of Chinese consider
that the authorities have an obligation to guarantee freedom of expression online (Internet Society, 2012).
According to the respondents, Chinese people are used to
censorship; most are not very concerned about what they
are permitted to say. They care more about what music they
can listen to, what films they are allowed to see and what
products they can buy. The interviewees believe there is
a greater likelihood of dissatisfaction being expressed in
these areas than of protests over their not being allowed to
criticise the regime.
Pakistan
Pakistan is not a stable democracy and respect for freedom of expression is limited. In recent years, the Pakistani
authorities have employed increasingly drastic methods to
control the flow of information via mobile phones and other
new technologies. According to Freedom House, internet
freedom has deteriorated alarmingly since 2011.
“Those holding power in Pakistan say they are in
favour of freedom online – with the exceptions of
pornography and blasphemy. But what is blasphemy – who decides? Blasphemy is often used as a
pretence to exercise censorship.”
Sana Saleem, Pakistan
According to Sana Saleem, a writer and internet activist,
this development is connected in part to the on-going conflict in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. On several
occasions, the authorities have completely shut down mobile traffic in Baluchistan in order to cut off communication
with the outside world.
The Pakistani government has plans to install advanced
technology to create a national internet firewall on the
Chinese model. The proposal has drawn intense criticism,
which has so far deterred its implementation.

14. 12
Otherwise, there is popular support in the country for censo­r­­
ing web content considered blasphemous, anti-Islamic, pornographic or regarded as a threat to the country’s security. Only
39 per cent of the Pakistani population think the internet should
be free from state censorship (Pew Research Center, 2012).
The penalties for saying something illegal can be draconian.
Blasphemy carries the death penalty, and there are instances
of its application to citizens charged with blaspheming Islam
in a text message.
Russia
In Russia today, the internet is the most important source
of news, especially for younger people. One contributing
factor is that other media are censored and the internet is
essentially the only option for people who want to access independent information.
The Russian government is attempting to find legislative
means to step up internet control in order to eliminate uncomfortable criticism. Legislation has been proposed that
would allow websites to be shut down without a court order.
Such legislation is officially intended to protect children
against extremism and other aggressive web content. But
critics argue that this is simply a pretence,
“The level of censorship in Russia is really high. All
newspapers are more or less censored, making the
internet the only news channel.”
Oksana Chelysheva, Russia
Those monitoring developments in Russia think internet
freedom there has also declined in recent years. The number of websites blacklisted has risen and there are cases of
bloggers running into trouble, often in connection with revelations of corruption or other abuses of power.
“If you criticize powerful people, anything can happen,
especially if you interfere with their business interests,”
said Ilya Stechkin of Moscow State University.
Despite Russia’s weak democratic tradition, support for
freedom of expression is basically strong, and 70 per cent
are opposed to state censorship of the internet (Pew
Research Center, 2012).
US
Although the US cannot really be compared to the five
other nations examined by United Minds in this study, it is
included as a reference country. The US has expressed ambitions in the area of internet freedom, and the country’s
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has delivered a
series of speeches on what can be done to increase internet
freedom around the world.
Many of the people interviewed for this study (including
those outside the US) refer to Hillary Clinton’s speeches on
internet freedom. They argue that she – and thus Americans
– were the first to coin the expression ‘internet freedom’.
“Sweden has a good government policy to make affordable and open internet accessible to everyone.”
Josh Levy, US
The Americans interviewed argued that the internet in the
US is free. “What do get censored on the internet in the US
are basically two things – child pornography and things related to terrorism,” said Josh Levy of Free Press.
The US government does not generally prosecute individuals for content they publish online if it does not involve
child pornography or copyright infringement. There are examples of police in the US monitoring websites in order to
track people suspected of involvement in certain activities.
One example is police in New York spying on Muslim students in the US for a number of years by monitoring blogs,
websites and chat forums aimed specifically at this target
group.
Some 78 per cent of people in the US have internet access,
much higher than in the five other countries studied, but
lower than in IT mature countries in Europe such as Sweden,
Finland and the Netherlands.
Country comparison
As indicated in the overview, the six countries differ in a
number of respects. Figure 2 below provides a general comparison of attributes such as internet access, internet free-

15. Summary
dom and the relationship between freedom in the analogue
world and the digital sphere.
The countries all have large populations; even where the
level of internet access is low, the absolute number of internet users is high. Pakistan, with 184 million inhabitants, is
the sixth largest country in the world in population terms.
Even at its current low level of internet access (nine per cent)
this amounts to over 15 million internet users. Moreover, in
countries with a young population – such as Pakistan – conditions favour a rapid rise in the number of internet users.
With 80 million inhabitants, Egypt is the smallest country in the
study. However, it is still the third largest country in Africa, after
Nigeria and Ethiopia. Despite its low GDP per capita, Egypt enjoys a comparatively high level of internet access – 39 per cent.
The key part played by the internet in the events leading up to
the overthrow of the Mubarak government gave it considerable status and a prominent position as a news channel.
In every country in the study except the US, the internet still
reaches less than half the population. However, it has a considerably broader reach among more highly educated people
and city dwellers. Internet access is significantly higher in
Russia, Egypt and China than in India and Pakistan.
China is the only one-party state in the study. Political elections in which different parties compete for power are held
in all the other countries. The US and India are stable democracies, whereas Russia, Egypt and Pakistan have weaker traditions in that respect.
Familiarity with Sweden in the countries studied is not particularly great, due in part to geographical distance. In Russia
– with the highest degree of familiarity with Sweden – Sweden
ranks 23rd out of 50 comparable countries in the 2011 Nation
Brands Index (NBI). The country with the lowest degree of
familiarity with Sweden is India, where Sweden ranks 39th out
of 50 comparable countries (see figure on page 15).
Freedom House has ranked the internet in the six countries
as follows: China and Pakistan: Not Free; Egypt, Russia
and India: Partly Free; the US: Free. These ratings are in
line with the more detailed responses provided by interviewees to the question of how they view internet freedom
in their own countries.
13
The view in most of these countries is that there is greater
freedom online than offline. In some ways, India is the exception, since laws make it easier for authorities to censor
the internet relative to other media. In general, however,
the internet has facilitated wider access to information and
extended the limits of what can be said and what issues can
be discussed.
There is a clear correlation between the degree of internet freedom in a country and that country’s democratic
development, i.e. a correlation between freedom in the
digital and analogue world respectively. The least democratic country, China, is also the country where authorities
exercise the most stringent internet control. Authoritarian
regimes are characterised by their attempts to silence critics, including online critics. However, the fact that a country
votes for its leaders in democratic elections is no guarantee
of freedom from censorship. India is a democracy but has
nonetheless introduced laws allowing arbitrary internet
censorship. Although Pakistan ranks second behind China
among the countries in this study, with the lowest level of
internet freedom, it is more democratic than Egypt and
Russia, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2012
Index of Democracy.
Views on internet censorship
Many of the people interviewed in this study affirm that
there is political support in their country for some internet
censorship. Their understanding is that those in power use
phenomena like child pornography, blasphemy against Islam and persecution of ethnic groups as a pretence to introduce laws restricting freedom of expression online.
However, opinion polls show that if the question is asked
from a different angle, most people will maintain that freedom of expression online is desirable and important. Only
in one of the countries studied – Pakistan – do a majority
think it is good to have state internet censorship.
As Figure 2 shows, a large majority of inhabitants in four of
these countries responded that the internet has improved
their lives. This question was not asked in the other two
countries, Egypt and Pakistan.

16. 14
$ 48,112
Figure 2. General comparison of the countries in the study.
India
Number of inhabitants:
millions – 1,200
315
US
$ 3,650
GDP
GDP
78%
10%
China
Number of inhabitants:
millions – 1,300
184
Pakistan
$ 2,745
$ 8,400
9%
Per cent of the
population with
internet access –
38%
GDP
$ 21,921
143
GDP
Russia
49%
GDP
GDP per inhabitant (PPP),
World Bank, 2011, $
Number of inhabitants:
millions
80
Egypt
$ 6,281
Per cent of the population
with internet access (2011,
according to ITU),%
39%
GDP

17. Summary
15
Sweden’s
image
according to
the NBI, 2011
Internet freedom
according to
Freedom House,
2012
Internet freedom
according to the
people interviewed
Relation between freedom
in the analogue world and in
the digital sphere
Egypt
29
Continued surveillance of
activists and bloggers
Greater freedom
online than offline
India
39
Laws allow arbitrary
internet censorship
Less freedom online
than offline
China
29
Extensive surveillance and
internet censorship
Greater freedom
online than offline
Not
calculated
Risk of increased surveillance
and internet censorship –
extreme penalty for
blasphemy against Islam
Greater freedom
online than offline
Russia
23
Attempts to increase
surveillance and internet
censorship of critics of
regime
Greater freedom
online than offline
US
31
Free – surveillance linked to
the war against terrorism
Same level of freedom
Pakistan
Sources:
Nation Brands Index (NBI) 2011, an index that annually
measures how a large number of individuals evaluate different
countries based on aspects such as culture, governance, and
economy and business environment.
Partly free
Free
Not free
Freedom House, 2012 (see page 8).
Countries ranked according to the
Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of
Democracy 2012
#141 – China
(3.14)
#115 – Egypt
(3.95)
#117 – Russia
(3.92)
#105 – Pakistan
(4.55)
#39 – India
(7.30)
#19 – US
(8.1)
Authoritarian regime
Full democracy
Hybrid regime
Source: The Economist Intelligence
Unit Limited 2012
Full democracy
Authoritarian regime
Authoritarian regime
Flawed democracy
Authoritarian regime

18. 16
Figure 3. The view of freedom of expression in the countries studied according to opinion polls.
It is important to have access to the internet
without government censorship (Pew Research 2012)
Egypt
87%
India
China
Pakistan
Russia
39%
70%
US
Access to the internet should be a basic human right
(Internet Society 2012)
Egypt
India
88%
China
93%
Pakistan
88%
Russia
US
78%
My life has improved due to using the internet
(Internet Society 2012)
Egypt
88%
India
China
94%
% who are of
that opinion
Pakistan
Russia
US
85%
77%
Question not
asked in the
country

19. 17
The ınternet as a channel
of ınfluence.
New phenomenon with great potential
What topics can be discussed
The number of internet users is rapidly growing in the
countries studied. In five of the countries investigated, access to the internet is still limited to parts of the population.
Television is generally the medium that reaches the greatest
number of people and has the greatest impact, but it is also
the medium subject to the most government control and
censorship. In most cases, newspapers and radio are more
tightly controlled than the internet.
One of the aims of this study was to investigate opportunities
to use the internet as a channel of influence in four priority
areas: human rights; development and the fight against poverty; innovation; and security.
Respondents were asked to what extent it was possible to
freely discuss these topics online and whether the internet
was a potential channel for opinion formation/influence. A
summary of their answers is given in Figure 4.
It is important to keep in mind that internet users in countries with restricted online freedom cannot always know
exactly when censorship is being or will be applied. These
answers are based on the respondents’ identification of sensitive topics.
Figure 4. The internet as a channel for opinion formation/influence in different areas.
Responses to the question: Is the internet a potential channel for opinion formation/influence in the following areas?
Human rights
Egypt
India
China
Pakistan
Russia
US
Fight against
poverty
Innovation
Security

20. 18
Human rights are a highly sensitive topic of discussion in
China, since this is indirectly regarded as criticism of the
prevailing political system. In the other countries, however,
it is possible to discuss human rights issues online.
to discuss human rights, though it is easier to discuss social,
cultural and economic rights if caution is exercised. Online
advocacy activities are usually driven by individuals and
journalists rather than organisations.
Development and the fight against poverty can also be a
sensitive topic in China, since this is primarily a government concern. Whether it is regarded as sensitive, however,
depends on how the topic is approached.
In India, it is evident that the internet is becoming an ever
more powerful means of influence. The December 2012
gang rape in New Delhi attracted considerable attention
and drew strong protests. Expressions of protest were posted online using Facebook and WhatsApp, where users replaced their profile images with a black dot symbol.2 Tens of
thousands of Indians have signed an online petition protesting the lack of security for women in the country.3
Innovation can be discussed online in every country in the
study. There seems to be a general understanding of the internet as a communication channel that promotes innovation and new ways of thinking. In countries such as China
and Pakistan, restrictions on freedom of expression give
rise to innovation to some extent as bloggers and activists
try to get around the censorship. For instance, code words
are used to avoid filtering when controversial topics are discussed.
In contrast, issues concerning national security and tense
relations with other countries are a minefield. In China, it
is not possible to bring up the subject of Taiwan or Tibet. In
Russia, Chechnya is a highly sensitive topic. In Pakistan,
the national security situation is generally tense, and the
authorities do not want to attract attention to the situation
in the province of Baluchistan. India also has internal conflicts and security issues that may be risky to mention. Although it is unclear exactly how risky it is to discuss security
issues in Egypt at present, it seems to be subject to less extensive internet censorship than most of the other countries
in the study.
In the US, there is surveillance of suspected terrorists, and
anyone expressing sympathy with terrorist acts could have
problems. Otherwise, people in the US are free to discuss
national security issues online.
Advocacy work today
According to the people United Minds interviewed in China,
there are no Chinese organisations currently fighting for
greater freedom of expression online. The regime would
not tolerate that kind of organisation. It is generally risky
Alok Dixit, a net activist in India, has organised a number
of online offensives. His most recent action, ‘Stop Acid
Attacks’, campaigns against such attacks on women by men
who want to punish them (www.stopacidattacks.org).
Dixit is living proof that it is possible to engage in advocacy
work online, although he and the other people interviewed
feel that the channel is immature in the sense that its full
potential has not been realised.
In Pakistan, an active group of internet activists have
fought strenuously against government efforts to develop
a national internet firewall. A couple of organisations, of
which Bytes for All is the oldest and most influential, are
campaigning for freedom of expression online. Shahzad
Ahmad, the Country Director of Bytes for All, believes
that it is possible to pursue advocacy work online on issues
involving human rights, the fight against poverty, personal
safety, innovation and women’s rights.
For example, a major impact was made by a provocative
music video created by the Pakistani rock band Beygairat
Brigade [Shameless Brigade]. The video criticised the military’s influence in Pakistan and was quickly blocked by
Vimeo, with no reason given (www.vimeo.com/64414932).
The group broke through with another video, Alau Anday
2 articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-21/
chandigarh/35952817_1_delhi-gangrape-city-student-dot
3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Delhigang-rape-case-FacebookTwitter-fuels-rally-at-India-Gate/
articleshow/17741529.cms

21. 166
Figure 5. Use of social media and mobile phones in the countries studied.
Number of people signed up on
Facebook, 2012, Internet World
Stats, millions
Number of users of other
social media, millions
63
46
45
25
18
12
0.2
8
0.6
Egypt
India
China
8
1.5
Pakistan
Russia
US
Most important
social media
according to the
people interviewed
Number of inhabitants
per country, millions
1,300
1,200
Number of mobile
phone subscriptions in
the country, ITU, 2011,
millions
986
894
184
80
83
Egypt
India
China
256
109
Pakistan
315
290
143
Russia
US

22. 20
[Potatoes and eggs], which joked about the country’s leading politicians and generals (www.vimeo.com/30691910).
In Egypt, the internet played a key role in the overthrow of
the Mubarak regime. As a result, those governing Egypt
today have a complicated relationship with the country’s
internet activists. The activists are considered dangerous
and have to be treated with caution. The people we interviewed in Egypt all affirm that it is possible to undertake
advocacy work online on social issues, as shown by the 2011
revolution. It was not the internet itself that overthrew the
Mubarak regime, but rather tools such as Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube that allowed the protests to spread
more quickly and become more large-scale. 4
In Russia, the internet has developed into one of the most
important channels for providing news, in part because of
the absence of other free media. This makes the internet a
natural channel for anyone who seeks to conduct advocacy
work on social issues and reach a larger audience.
4 Tim Eaton (2012), Online Activism and Revolution in Egypt:
Lessons from Tahir, New Diplomacy Platform
According to the people United Minds interviewed in
Russia, it is possible to carry out advocacy work on issues
concerning human rights, development and the fight
against poverty, and innovation. It is also possible to criticise political leaders, despite the considerable risk of being
reprimanded.
Recently, a mysterious video turned up online in which
Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev was criticised by
former Russian political leaders in interviews. The video
was professionally produced but contained no indication of
who posted it. The aim was clearly to damage Medvedev, and
indirectly Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. The video
angered Putin; at a press conference where he first requested that journalists turn off their cameras, he sharply criticised the filmmakers (www.lifenews.ru/news/112845). The
internet tabloid Life News, which published a video clip on
its website, was threatened with losing its right to attend
Kremlin press conferences.

23. 21
Vıews of Sweden and ınternet
freedom.
An unfamiliar role model
Sweden is widely recognised for its high degree of freedom
of expression online. Although the general level of knowledge about Sweden is low in many of the countries studied,
the people interviewed have an image of Sweden as a free,
open society.
Human rights activist Nadine Sherif in Egypt:
“Sweden is generally regarded as a role model for how its
citizens are treated. I don’t know about Sweden and internet
freedom, but I have never heard anything bad about Sweden.”
Shahzad Ahmad of the organisation Bytes for All, in Pakistan:
“Scandinavia overall is the best example of civil liberties in
practice, especially when it comes to freedom of
expression.”
The blogger Sana Saleem in Pakistan was more cautious in
identifying role models, but she definitely believed Sweden
was free compared to other countries:
“The models for Pakistan when it comes to freedom of expression are European countries – not the United States in
any respect.”
One of the Chinese respondents:
“I don’t know anything about what the situation is like in
Sweden, but I assume it is very free in relative terms.”
Another Chinese respondent, who had been to Sweden,
was somewhat better informed. She believed that Sweden
was a good role model for other countries:
“I know that Sweden has a really high profile when it comes
to openness and transparency. But if you were to ask typical
Chinese people, most would probably think that the US
was the best role model. Most Chinese don’t know anything
about Sweden, but in my opinion, the US is not the perfect
role model.”
Not as polarising as the US
In Pakistan and Egypt, people have a highly negative view
of the US. Most of the interviewees in these countries see it
as a problem that freedom of expression is so strongly associated with the US.
Blogger Sana Saleem:
“Sadly, freedom of expression is seen in Pakistan as a Western notion. We actually avoid that term, instead using terms
like ‘free flow of information’ or ‘open access’.”
Journalist Nasry Esmat in Egypt:
“When people [in Egypt] think about freedom, they usually
think about the US. The West in general is associated with
freedom, but in the conservative Egyptian mind this is not
necessarily seen as something good. Freedom is to some extent connected to moral decay. Islamists equate freedom to
gay rights, and that is not seen as something good in Egypt –
not something you want to be associated with.”
Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society in
India is involved internationally and was therefore well informed about which countries were driving issues involving
freedom of expression online:
“Sweden is definitely on that list, as well as the Netherlands.”
He did not know exactly what Sweden’s strengths are when
it came to internet freedom, but thought it was a big advantage that Sweden is not as polarising as the US:
“If the Americans suggest something, many disapprove just
because it comes from them. If Sweden takes up the same
proposal, the chances are greater that the debate will be
about the proposal itself.”
Finland a role model for Russia
Somewhat more is known about Sweden in Russia, perhaps
because it is geographically closer than the other countries.
The Russian interviewees affirmed that the Nordic countries were role models for online freedom of expression.
Russian journalist Oksana Chelysheva:
“Finland, Sweden, basically all the Scandinavian countries
– but not the Baltic States.”
However, both she and Ilya Stechkin of Moscow State
University consider Finland to be the main model. In their
view, Finland has traditionally enjoyed a special relation-

24. 22
ship with Russia which the other Nordic countries do not
have. Finland is more involved with Russia than Sweden.
Training courses provided by Finland to Russian journalists are one example. Ilya Stechkin:
“Very little in Sweden is translated into Russian. I haven’t
come across any Swedish researchers who have written
about ICT in Russian. Neither have I dealt with any Swedish
players in the Russian educational market or media market.”
“As a journalist I was very enthusiastic when we got access to
information about the connections between the US Embassy
in Cairo and the Mubarak regime. We feel that we have the
right to know about this. The trial in Sweden against Julian
Assange makes Sweden’s relationship with internet freedom
a bit complicated. I understand that the accusations against
Assange are about something different, but Sweden is not
seen as a country that supports WikiLeaks.”
The US respondents all have a positive impression of
Sweden and see it as a given that Sweden stands for freedom
and openness. Josh Levy of the organisation Free Press in
the US:
“Sweden has a good government policy to make affordable
and open internet accessible to everyone.”
Other people interviewed do not make the same connection.
Alan Rosenblatt at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in
the US:
“Julian Assange is vaguely associated with Sweden, but only
vaguely.”
But the Americans do not consider Sweden to be actively
driving the issue of freedom of expression online. Alan
Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in the US:
“I know a fair amount about Sweden, but I honestly don’t
know what Sweden is doing to support internet freedom. If
you are doing things, maybe you should promote it more.”
Sweden and WikiLeaks
Anja Kovacs at the Internet Democracy Project in India applauded the fact that Sweden was actively engaged internationally in freedom of expression issues. “The Stockholm
Internet Forum is an excellent initiative,” she said. But
Kovacs also added that Sweden, through its actions in
other contexts, had helped to undermine its own credibility. Among other things, she referred to the legal proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the
reports that Swedish companies were selling surveillance
equipment to dictators: “There are too many murky parts
of these stories.”
She was supported in this by Nasry Esmat in Egypt, who explained that he loved WikiLeaks:
Sweden a positive surprise
Most of the people interviewed found it difficult to say anything specific about the situation in Sweden or Sweden’s
strengths when it came to freedom of expression or internet freedom. Only some of them had been to Sweden and
ventured to say something about differences between European countries. However, many of those who had visited
Sweden indicated that they were positively surprised when
they realised how free and transparent Sweden was.
Nasry Esmat in Egypt admitted that he had previously
known nothing about Sweden, but after having taken part
in training arranged by the Swedish Institute, he definitely
associated Sweden with issues concerning freedom and
freedom of expression.
One of the Chinese respondents related that Chinese tourists in Sweden discovered that they could go to any website
in their hotel room, even those blocked in China:
“Many Chinese who travel abroad are curious and want to
explore what websites they can access, but most people in
China do not know that Sweden is so good at freedom of expression and openness. You should market it more.”

25. 23
The countrıes’ needs and
Sweden’s ımportance.
Encouraging increased internet use
The respondents had many suggestions about what countries like Sweden could do to promote internet freedom and
development in other parts of the world.
Many believed that increased internet use itself led to
greater freedom of expression, as it was impossible in practice for the authorities to control everything said and published online. Encouraging and facilitating greater access
and internet use was thus one way to indirectly help to increase freedom of expression and democratisation.
Internet access in a number of the countries studied is still
low among large segments of the population. Moreover,
many of those with access have poor connections and/or
insufficient knowledge to make full use of the internet. It is
possible to achieve substantial progress simply by improving access and raising the level of knowledge. One way of
doing this is to show the advantages of universal internet
access. According to Pranesh Prakash at CIS in India, it is
important to emphasise positive examples.
One of the respondents in China thought that Sweden
should share concrete experiences showing how greater
freedom of expression can generate more economic growth.
She believed that the Chinese government would be prepared to accept this argument.
Training of internet users, journalists and
activists
The most common suggestion by the people interviewed was
that Sweden could help by providing training and knowledge
about internet use, fact checking and freedom of expression.
One of the Russian respondents took the view that it did not
matter whether that training took place in Russia or Sweden. Even distance training would be a feasible option:
“Train NGOs on how they can use the internet in their
work, train journalists on how to use the internet more effectively and become better at investigative journalism.”
His colleague Ilya Stechkin at Moscow State University
agreed. In his view, one idea would be to start a media
knowledge project to enhance people’s knowledge about internet use and online media.
A number of the interviewees also suggested training for
internet activists in protecting their own information more
effectively. Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy
Roundtable in the US:
“The biggest privacy problem is actually people giving out
their information voluntarily.”
This problem is not necessarily less pervasive in countries
that lack protection of rights and where security forces usually spy on citizens. Blogger Ramy Raoof in Egypt:
“Most people are not aware of how information travels,
how it can be used or who can capture it. The majority also
know little about digital security and what they can do to
protect their privacy.”
Countering censorship and blocking of
websites
One way to counter censorship is to move servers to other
countries when websites are threatened with being shut
down. The risk of the websites completely disappearing is
thereby avoided, although it may still be difficult to access
them from the country seeking to censor the content.
Of the countries investigated, so far only China blocks
foreign websites to any great extent. (YouTube is occasionally blocked in Pakistan.) Anyone who lives in China can
evade internet censorship by using a Virtual Private
Network (VPN). The service, which can be purchased
through a company, involves connecting with a server in another country, thus gaining free access to any website they
want. The disadvantages of using a VPN are that it costs
money and the connection is slower. If the authorities wish
to do so, they can shut down the VPN service, which sometimes happens in China.
Anonymous ‘proxy servers’ based outside China can be used
to access blocked content. Since websites are blocked only

26. 24
for computers in China, people can get access if it looks as if
they are surfing on a computer in another country.
sure that the rest of the world keeps an eye on what is happening affords greater security for these individuals.
The US provides funding to develop proxy servers in order to make it easier for Chinese internet users to access
blocked websites. The Chinese blogger interviewed by
United Minds:
Another measure is to provide technical equipment that
reduces the risk of surveillance and protects the identity of
internet users. Pakistani blogger Sana Saleem:
“VPN services are important, especially in countries with
growing internet surveillance.”
“This may be a way to increase freedom of speech, but
I don’t think it’s a very efficient way. A proxy server can
be blocked, and I think they have enough technology and
clever people to block any proxy.”
There is other technology which can be used to evade national internet censorship. Alkasir is a popular service in
the Middle East and available in both English and Arabic
(www.alkasir.com).
Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in
the US predicts that in the future satellites will be developed which will allow people unrestricted access to the
internet, regardless of what country they are in.
A technology race is currently under way between countries seeking to exercise censorship and organisations
looking to prevent it. By contributing funding and technical know-how, Sweden can help organisations that want to
prevent censorship.
Protecting individuals and countering
surveillance
The blocking and shutting down of websites pose a serious
problem. However, a no less important problem is the selfcensorship that takes place in countries where freedom of
expression is not respected. In Pakistan, blasphemy against
Islam is subject to the death penalty. There are limits as to
what risks individuals dare to take, and few people are prepared to end up in prison for something they have written in
a blog.
According to the Russian journalist Oksana Chelysheva,
it is important to monitor what is happening to critics of
regimes whom the government is trying to silence. Making
A number of websites provide information on how internet
users can protect themselves against surveillance. One such
website was created by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
– Surveillance Self-Defence (ssd.eff.org).
Legal assistance
The Pakistani respondents emphasised the need for legal
assistance. Shahzad Ahmad:
“Our legal system has not been adapted to modern technology. The government uses gaps in the law to force through
restrictions on freedom of expression. With the help of legal
knowledge from the outside, it should be possible to avoid this.”
One of the people interviewed in China would like legal
assistance but of a different kind. The authorities in China
have difficulty obtaining accurate information because
there is a fear that the information provided will be misused. Thus it was important to build trust and introduce
laws guaranteeing that certain information was protected:
“Sweden could contribute legal knowledge about how to
make laws that protect privacy.”
Exchanges with internet activists
Oksana Chelysheva thought that Sweden should step up its
exchanges with activists working for internet freedom. By inviting internet activists to Sweden, it would be easier to gain
an understanding of what needs these people had and what
the situation was like in their own countries. This would also
be a way to give activists moral support and encouragement.
The contacts that were made could prove valuable.

27. The countries’ needs and Sweden’s
importance
25
Information in other languages
Exploiting existing projects
The Russian respondents felt that Sweden should be better at providing information in other languages, especially
Russian. Having information available only in Swedish or
at best also in English was seen as a major limitation – especially from a Russian perspective.
A number of the people interviewed argued that it was better to take advantage of existing projects than develop new
structures. Pakistani blogger Sana Saleem:
“There are already networks with people who work for human rights, and it is possible to get help from them.”
One of the people interviewed in China also raised the issue of languages:
“Most of the information in Sweden is in Swedish, so it’s
difficult for us to understand it. You should maybe publish
more things in English; that would make it easier to gain access to information on Sweden.”
One of the Chinese respondents:
“You should raise the Swedish profile on transparency in
the projects that you are already doing, like Sida-funded
projects.”
Encouraging international dialogue
Pranesh Prakash at CIS in India emphasised the value of a
common international forum in which issues involving internet freedom can be discussed. He thought that Sweden
and other countries should increase their involvement in
the internet Governance Forum (IGF), a UN-established
platform for discussing the development and future of the
internet:
“IGF will never replace the other forums, but if the issues
discussed in other forums are brought to the IGF, there can
be direct dialogue between different countries. The IGF
will never gain credibility unless countries start treating it
more seriously.” Pranesh feared that without a common forum where questions about the development of the internet
could be discussed, the internet would be splintered and
conflict-ridden.
In the view of the Egyptian human rights activist Nadine
Sherif, international agreements were necessary to protect
the safety of internet activists. The internet has no bound­
aries and common regulations governing the right of individuals to protect their privacy were needed.
Josh Levy of Free Press in the US thought it was risky for
the West to try to force its views on other countries:
“It will probably backfire if we tell other countries what to
do; instead, we need to encourage an open dialogue about
the benefits of internet freedom.”
Raising the profile of Sweden and
the Nordic countries
According to many of those interviewed, Sweden and the
other Nordic countries enjoy a high degree of credibility on
issues involving freedom of expression and internet freedom. However, what is missing to some extent is visibility.
Journalist Nasry Esmat in Egypt:
“You need a strategy. Internet freedom is strongly connected to the US, so you need to differentiate yourselves from
the US.”
There is a strong desire, especially among the respondents in Egypt and Pakistan, for Sweden to become more
involved in issues concerning freedom of expression and
internet freedom, in part because the US should not be the
only country associated with these issues. Shahzad Ahmad
of Bytes for All:
“Stronger support from Sweden is extremely important
to those of us who work for human rights in authoritarian
states or developing democracies like Pakistan.”

28. 26
Conclusıons and
recommendatıons.
The purpose of this study is to examine the state of internet
freedom in six selected countries, what channels are important in each country, what their view is of Sweden as an advocate of internet freedom and what countries like Sweden
can do to help increase internet freedom and development.
The background to this is Sweden’s long-standing tradition of democracy and freedom of expression. Our country
is also one of the most ICT-mature and creative countries
in the world. This combination makes Sweden particularly
well suited to promoting issues concerning internet freedom.
The internet has already helped increase freedom of expression around the world by dramatically expanding access to information. Even in countries where freedom of expression is highly restricted, technology has made it easier
for people to express their opinions. Unfortunately, however, this freedom cannot be taken for granted. There is a
constant tug-of-war between those seeking to facilitate the
flow of free information and those who want to introduce
greater control and censorship.
The conclusions of the projects can be summarised in the
four general points below.
Our involvement is desired
It is clear that there is a desire for Sweden’s involvement on
the issue of internet freedom. In a number of the countries
investigated, freedom of expression online is under threat.
The methods for silencing critics and restricting access to
information are numerous and sophisticated, and they appear to be gathering strength. A number of organisations
and individuals continuously monitor developments in
internet freedom in the countries studied. But democratic
countries also need to exert pressure and voice criticism
when freedom of expression is suppressed.
The issue of freedom of expression online is closely associated with the US, which according to the people interviewed could be considered a disadvantage, particularly
in Muslim parts of the world. Many of the internet activists we interviewed indicate that this makes their struggle
more difficult. There is a strong desire to have European
countries such as Sweden become more involved in order
to eliminate the one-sided association with the US, a controversial country. Sweden has a good reputation on issues
of democracy and human rights, and thus enjoys considerable credibility. This is also true of our Nordic neighbours.
In Russia, attention is naturally focused on Finland, which
like Sweden, boasts a high degree of ICT maturity. According to the World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index (2013), Finland has taken over as the world’s
most ICT-mature country, while Sweden has fallen to third
place. All the Nordic countries rank very high in the index.
It is therefore advantageous to undertake projects aimed at
increasing internet freedom in collaboration with the other
Nordic countries in view of the greater impact.
It is also crucial in this connection to find the right narrative, terms and tone to fit the local context. For instance, if
‘freedom of expression’ and ‘internet freedom’ are terms
closely associated with the US, it could be strategic to use
expressions that do not have such loaded connotations.
Sweden can raise its profile
Although Sweden’s involvement with internet freedom is
nothing new, few people are familiar with what we do as a
country in terms of advocacy for online freedom of expression. Such an understanding appears to be confined to
those who take part in international forums where issues
involving internet freedom are discussed.
It is clear that Sweden needs to raise its profile and expand
its strategic communication on issues involving internet
freedom and development. Sweden’s role as an advocate of
internet freedom needs to be communicated externally to
a greater extent. The issue could also be highlighted more
clearly in existing projects involving or undertaken by
Sweden, such as Sida-funded projects.
The internet is a superior channel
One finding from the study is that the internet is a crucial
channel of influence in all the countries investigated. Freedom of expression today is greater online than offline in

29. 27
every country in the study except for India. However, there
are growing threats of future restrictions to internet freedom in a number of these countries.
In countries like Russia and Egypt, where there is a relatively high level of internet access, the internet is an obvious
channel for anyone who wants to disseminate independent
information. Even in countries such as India and Pakistan,
where access is low, the internet is a natural channel for
reaching out to younger people involved in advocacy.
Anyone who only studies statistics on the reach of different media risks drawing the wrong conclusions, although
traditional media are still important. Newspaper circulation is gradually declining, while the number of internet users continues to rise at a rapid rate. This means that in a few
years the internet will be an even more important channel.
Moreover, traditional media are being consumed online
to an ever increasing extent. As the ‘digital’ and ‘analogue’
spheres are gradually being integrated, it is becoming even
more difficult to differentiate between freedom online and
offline.
Working together makes us stronger
Sweden needs to raise its profile on the issue of internet
freedom. It is crucial that key actors in society work together if change is to be effected. Civil society, government and
the business community all need to be encouraged to work
together in order to expand opportunities to exert influence
and achieve results.
Influence can be brought to bear through numerous channels; it is by no means confined to high-level political or diplomatic contacts. Raising the issue in business discussions
with Swedish companies or in exchanges with Swedish
institutions of higher education can have a substantial impact. The Swedish Institute has a major and vital task to
facilitate this and encourage the collaboration of different
stakeholders.

30. 28
Appendıx.
Lınks to organısatıons and ındıvıduals that
monıtor ınternet freedom ın dıfferent parts
of the world.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org
Reporters Without Borders, www.rsf.org
Open Net Initiative (ONI), www.opennet.net
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), www.eff.org
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), www.cpj.org
Digital Civil Rights in Europe (EDRI), www.edri.org
The Citizen Lab, University of Toronto, www.citizenlab.org
Association for Progressive Communications (APC), www.apc.org
The Public Voice, www.thepublicvoice.org
Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), www.palermo.edu/cele/
Bolo Bhi, www.bolobhi.org
Mideast Youth, www.mideastyouth.com
Free Press, www.freepress.net
IT for Change, www.itforchange.net
Internet & Society Co:llaboratory, en.collaboratory.de
Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), www.ffii.org
Blocked on Weibo, blockedonweibo.tumblr.com/(tool)
GreatFire.org, en.greatfire.org (tool)

31. 29
EGYPT:
“In the conservatıve Egyptıan mınd, freedom
ıs not necessarıly seen as somethıng good.”
In Egypt, the internet has a comparatively strong position, in
part because of the role the country played in connection with
the Arab Spring. However, this does not mean there is freedom
of expression online or that the privacy of internet users is respected. Since the revolution, the authorities have continued
more or less as before, albeit with reduced capacity.
During the 2011 revolution in Egypt, the blogger and human
rights activist Ramy Raoof was at the centre of events. He
was interviewed on CNN and in other media about ongoing
events in the country. He reported among other things on the
Mubarak regime’s desperate countermove to shut down the
internet and disrupt mobile phone service, which was aimed
at the demonstrators.
Ramy Raoof views Facebook and Twitter as important tools
“in the service of freedom”, but does not think they were
decisive in the Egyptian revolution. The demonstrations
against Mubarak continued for days even after the internet
was completely shut down, he notes.
Expanding the ICT infrastructure was part of the Mubarak
regime’s strategy for generating growth and creating new
jobs. There was no extensive internet censorship, although
according to Freedom House (2012) technology was used to
monitor the opposition and spread propaganda. There were
also cases of bloggers being imprisoned for something they
had written. The first case involved the 23-year-old law student Kareem Amer, who in 2007 was sentenced to four years
in prison for allegedly insulting Islam and Mubarak in a blog
entry.
After the fall of the Mubarak regime, the military continued
as before. In April 2011, the 26-year-old blogger Maikel
Nabil was sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly
insulting the Egyptian military in a blog entry. Nabil was
released in January 2012, after more than 300 days in prison
and today is living in exile in Germany (www.maikelnabil.com).
According to Ramy Raoof, the current Egyptian government also wants to collect any information it can get hold of,
regardless of whether there is any reason to collect it:
“It does not censor information in the sense that it makes
web pages unavailable; we have no record of that.”
The Muslim Brotherhood
Elections to Egypt’s lower house of parliament were held in
late 2011 and early 2012. The party backed by the Muslim
Brotherhood won a majority of votes. A few months later,
the Islamist Muhammad Morsi won the presidential election and became Egypt’s president.
According to Freedom House (2013), the country’s new
leader shows no respect for principles such as democracy
and human rights. The repression continues and freedom
of expression in particular is being stifled. A large number
of demonstrators have been killed by the security forces,
and only in a few cases have police officers been convicted
of a crime. Journalists and bloggers have been prosecuted
following charges of ‘insulting the president’. In addition,
there are legal proceedings underway against a number of
NGOs, including Freedom House.
The interviewees believe that much continues more or less
as before, with the difference that the authorities cannot
work as unhampered as they did in Mubarak’s time. The
journalist Nasry Esmat says that before the revolution the
security forces used to monitor what activists did online.
“What’s stopping them today is that they don’t have enough
capacity; they are busy with other problems,” he says.
The general view is that the Egyptian authorities are not
carrying out internet censorship in the sense that they filter information or block websites. That is why many of the
organisations that monitor internet freedom in different
countries consider Egypt to have greater internet freedom
than Russia and India, for example.
Egypt – a connected country
Mubarak invested in expanding Egypt’s ICT infrastructure,
thereby enabling increased internet use. Only later did he realise that the new technology might constitute a serious threat
to his reign. The role played by the internet in overthrowing
the Mubarak regime led to a sharp increase in interest in social
media. In late 2011, there were over ten million Facebook accounts registered in Egypt, placing the country among the top
twenty nations with the highest number of Facebook users.

32. 30
The respondents believe that the internet has helped boost
freedom of expression in Egypt, in the sense that there is
greater access to independent information. “The internet
has created an alternative route for getting access to information, a source that the government cannot control,” says
Nadine Sherif, who works at the Cairo Institute for Human
Rights Studies.
quires some effort to get reliable information,” says blogger
Ramy Raoof.
“The web is a free, decentralised media channel, which allows people to freely bring up topics that concern them.
Many taboos found in traditional media have been broken
online,” explains Ramy Raoof. He also emphasises the importance of internet users themselves creating content, as
opposed to just taking it in.
The blogger Maikel Nabil, who today lives in exile in
Germany, describes himself on his website as, among other
things, ‘liberal’, ‘secular’, ‘capitalist’, ‘feminist’ and ‘proWestern’ – designations which are clearly controversial in
Egypt.
“Egypt is a really conservative society. I wouldn’t say that
every taboo has been broken, but people can no longer pretend that there isn’t political and religious pluralism,” says
the journalist Nasry Esmat. “Even people who are not accepted by society can get their voices heard online,” he adds.
According to the interviewees, there really is no topic that
cannot be discussed online in Egypt. “I’ve seen information
related to military activities that breaks social and cultural taboos. I wouldn’t claim that this is popular with those in power,
but one can find all kinds of information,” adds Nasry Esmat.
The internet as a news channel in Egypt
The internet is an increasingly vital channel for news in Egypt.
Some 87 per cent of the population think it is important to
have a free internet with no censorship (Pew Research Center,
2012). However, those interviewed would argue that the information Egyptians get online is not particularly reliable.
“There is extensive spreading of rumours. Of course, there
is in every country, but the situation is especially problematic in Egypt, since Mubarak taught people to consider certain opinions as facts,” points out the human rights activist
Nadine Sherif. “Source checking is bad, and many internet
users can’t distinguish between true and false.”
“The internet is a channel for sharing information. It’s up to
the users themselves to decide what is true – and it also re-
How freedom of expression is viewed
in other countries
“When people think about freedom, they usually think
about the US. The West in general is associated with freedom, but in the conservative Egyptian mind this is not necessarily seen as something good,” says journalist Nasry Esmat.
“Freedom is to some extent connected to moral decay. The
Islamists equate freedom to gay rights, and that is not seen
as something good in Egypt – not something you want to be
associated with.”
The view of Sweden as a champion of
internet freedom
As blogger Ramy Raoof has limited knowledge of Sweden,
he is reluctant to say anything about the extent to which
Sweden represents internet freedom.
“Sweden is generally regarded as a role model for how its
citizens are treated. I don’t know about Sweden and internet freedom, but I have never heard anything bad about
Sweden,” says the human rights activist Nadine Sherif.
The journalist Nasry Esmat notes that he previously knew
nothing about Sweden. After having taken part in training
organised by the Swedish Institute, he definitely associates
Sweden with freedom issues and specifically freedom of
expression. However, he thinks that the image of the country as a champion of internet freedom has been marred by
the legal proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.

33. Appendix
31
“As a journalist, I was very enthusiastic when we got access
to information about the connections between the US Embassy in Cairo and the Mubarak regime. We feel that we
have the right to know about this,” he explains.
ments protecting the rights of internet activists to freedom
of expression. “The internet has no boundaries,” she points
out, “and common regulations, for example governing the
right of individuals to protect their privacy, are needed.”
Nasry Esmat is aware that the charges against Assange are
unrelated to WikiLeaks, but still thinks the proceedings
against Assange place Sweden in an unfavourable light.
The journalist Nasry Esmat wants Sweden to adopt what he
calls ‘the WikiLeaks model’, and guarantee universal unrestricted access to information. “I think unrestricted access
to the internet should be a human right,” he says.
How Sweden can help
“You need a strategy; internet freedom is strongly associated with the US, so you need to differentiate yourselves from
the US,” he advises.
The human rights activist Nadine Sherif wants countries
like Sweden to press for the adoption of international agree-
Summary for Egypt
.
The Mubarak regime’s investment in ICT led to a
.
dramatic expansion of internet use in Egypt. This in
turn provided a basis for the subsequent immense
importance of social media during the Egyptian
revolution.
There is no extensive internet censorship in place in
.
the country, but technology is used to monitor the
opposition and spread political propaganda.
.
positive. At the same time, most Egyptians think the
internet should be unrestricted and uncensored.
The people interviewed have limited knowledge about
Sweden, but there is a desire for greater involvement
on the part of European countries in issues concerning freedom of expression online and protecting the
privacy of internet users.
Facts about Egypt
Number of inhabitants: 80 million
Since the revolution, the Egyptian authorities have
.
continued much as before, though with reduced capacity. The Islamists show no respect for principles
such as democracy and human rights. Journalists and
bloggers have been prosecuted following charges that
they insulted President Morsi.
The respondents nonetheless believe that the inter-
.
net has helped increase freedom of expression in
Egypt, as there is now greater access to independent information. Any topic can be discussed online;
there is no systematic filtering of information.
According to the interviewees, many Egyptians
have an unfavourable view of the US. The term
‘freedom’ is associated with the West and is not
necessarily viewed by conservative Egyptians as
Internet access: 39% of the population (ITU, 2011)
Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 83 million
(ITU, 2011)
Number of Facebook accounts: 12 million (Internet
World Stats, 2012)
Purchasing power parity GDP per capita:
$6,281 (World Bank, 2011)
Important social media
Facebook and to some extent Twitter. YouTube videos
are spread via Facebook.

34. 32
INDIA:
“Easıer to censor onlıne than offlıne.”
India is usually described as the world’s largest democracy.
Though public discourse is lively in many respects, this does
not preclude those governing the country from trying to restrict
freedom of expression online and introducing laws that allow
arbitrary censorship.
Alok Dixit, 25 years old, is an internet activist and was involved in launching ‘Save Your Voice’, a campaign aimed at
safeguarding freedom of expression online. He started his
professional career as a journalist, and without the internet,
as the saying goes, he would be “nothing more than a poor
Indian bloke”.
The ‘Save Your Voice’ movement has attracted considerable attention, in part thanks to the hunger strike carried
out by Alok Dixit and the movement’s founder, Aseem
Trivedi, in protest against Section 66 A of India’s Information Technology Act (ITA). One of the provisions of the law
is that anyone can file a complaint against ‘offensive’ web
content. The internet provider is then required to remove
the content criticised within 36 hours, with no recourse to a
court of law. A court ruling on the legality or otherwise of
the complaint may be sought but only after the content has
been removed.
As recently as September 2012, the police arrested Alok
Dixit’s partner in Mumbai, Aseem Trivedi, for satirical
drawings he had posted online. The drawings were part of
a campaign against corruption, but the censorship was justified on the grounds that Aseem Trivedi had made fun of
India’s national symbols.
However, when we talk to Alok Dixit, he does not think
that internet censorship is a serious social problem in India.
“The authorities try to censor the internet, but they’re not
successful – they don’t have a chance to keep up,” he explains.
According to Alok Dixit, the internet has in practice meant
a dramatic increase in freedom of expression in India. “It’s
a true revolution. Even a girl in the country, who can barely
leave her parents’ house, can express her opinions on
Facebook.”
Misused censorship laws
Nevertheless, the laws that India has introduced to restrict
freedom of expression online have met with harsh criticism.
“These laws are actually really bad from the perspective of
freedom of expression,” says Pranesh Prakash of the
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore. “There
are greater restrictions on what a person can say online
than offline,” he notes.
CIS monitors the practical application of the laws. Prakash
and his colleagues contacted various internet providers
seven times to request that web content be removed. Content that could hardly be considered illegal was deliberately chosen. “In six of the seven cases, the internet provider
removed the content. We were only told no once – and that
was when it involved an ad that the internet provider would
lose money on if it was removed,” Prakash recalls.
Internationally, the case involving internet censorship in
India that attracted the most attention was the arrest of two
21-year-old women by police in Mumbai in November 2012.
They had criticised the authorities for basically shutting the
city down during mourning for the deceased leader of Shiv
Sena, Bal Thackeray for fear of disturbances. The women
were later released, and the case against them was dropped.
But the incident shows that the law can easily be misused –
and that this clearly happens.
More accepting view of censorship
Anja Kovacs heads the progressive think tank Internet
Democracy Project in New Delhi. In her opinion, it is easy
to submit a complaint and demand that web content be removed, but she doubts whether that many cases will be upheld in a court of law. “Legal proceedings in India are very
slow so we don’t know yet,” she explains.
Anja Kovacs is originally from Belgium but has lived in
India since 2001. She believes that censorship in India is generally more extensive than in many Western countries and
that Indians also have a more accepting view of censorship.
“The reason for this is that censorship has been used as an

35. Appendix
instrument to defuse social and religious conflicts. The government, with the support of large sections of Indian society,
restrict freedom of expression in different groups by prohibiting them from speaking ill of one another.”
33
How Sweden can help
But Anja Kovacs thinks that this has to change. “If we want
to maintain a free, open internet, India has to give up some
of its obsession with controlling what is said,” she insists.
Alok Dixit knows almost nothing at all about Sweden, so
he is reluctant to give advice on what countries like Sweden
should do. In general, he believes training is the best way to
strengthen freedom of expression online in the long term.
He argues that if more people are likely to use the internet
in the right way, attempts to censor it will fail.
Extensive laws have also been introduced for internet cafés,
which means that visitors must be carefully registered and
monitored. One of the purposes of these laws is to get rid of
pornography and make it safer for women to visit internet
cafés, but in Anja Kovacs’ view, this has the opposite effect.
“Young women feel more vulnerable when they are registered and monitored by the young men who run the internet
cafés,” she explains.
He is backed up here by Pranesh Prakash, who thinks a lot
can be done for internet access in India. One important
measure is to spread constructive examples of how the internet can be used. He also believes that Sweden and other
countries should continue to support the Internet Governance Forum, IGF, which has the potential to become a common forum in which countries around the world can discuss
issues involving freedom of expression online.
The internet is slowly growing in importance
Many advocacy movements in India are active online. Although they have other channels – the majority of their supporters do not have an internet connection – online campaigns are nonetheless becoming more common, according
to the respondents, especially via Facebook.
The number of internet users in India is growing at a rapid
rate – although it is easy to read too much into the figures.
According to official statistics, there are currently over 900
million mobile phone subscriptions. However, most Indians
cannot use their mobile phones to surf online. The rapid
rise in the number of mobile phone subscriptions is due in
part to well-to-do households acquiring additional and new
mobile phones, which is not the same thing as an increase in
the number of mobile phone users.
“There is a major generational gap in terms of internet use,”
says Alok Dixit. “Those in power don’t understand the new
technology, so they’re afraid. They consider the internet to
be a threat rather than an opportunity,” he explains.
Anja Kovacs appreciates that Sweden is involved in freedom of expression and human rights issues. “Greater involvement is needed from more countries,” she says. In her
view, the Stockholm Internet Forum is an excellent initiative. But Kovacs regrets that Sweden has helped undermine its own credibility through its actions in other areas.
The examples she gives are the prosecution of Pirate Bay’s
founder (she does not remember his name), the handling of
the case involving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and
the Swedish government’s unqualified support for Swedish
companies that sell bugging devices to dictatorships (she
does not remember the names of the companies). “There
are too many murky parts to these stories,” she objects.
Otherwise, Kovacs has a favourable view of Sweden and believes that European countries such as Sweden have greater
credibility among Indians than the US.

36. 34
Summary for India
.
Number of mobile phone subscriptions: About 894 million (ITU, 2011)
India has introduced laws that allow arbitrary inter-
.
net censorship. In a way, it is easier to censor information online than offline.
Taking a broader view, freedom of expression on the
.
internet is nevertheless greater than it was as more
people than before are able to share views. Existing
censorship is far from comprehensive.
The interviewees have a positive view of Sweden’s
.
involvement in issues concerning freedom of expression online. They feel it is important to have international forums where these issues can be discussed.
Sweden has a good reputation essentially, but informed Indians are surprised by Swedish actions on
some issues – including the treatment of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange.
As for India, they feel that training is the most effec-
tive instrument for strengthening freedom of expression online in the long run. With more internet users
who have had training, it will be more difficult to exercise censorship.
Facts about India
Number of inhabitants: About 1.2 billion (Census of
India, 2011)
Internet access: About 137 million users, 10% of the
population (Internet & Mobile Association of India,
2012)
Number of smartphones: 58 million (FICCI & KPMG
International, 2012)
Number of Facebook accounts: 63 miljoner (Internet
World Stats, 2012)
Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $3,650
(World Bank, 2011)
Organisations in India that seek to
promote freedom of expression online
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Internet Democracy Project, Save Your Voice, Software Freedom Law
Center (SFLC), Free Software Movement of India.
Important social media
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Orkut.
Also noteworthy
One in five women in India and Egypt think it is
inappropriate for women to use the internet.
Source: Pew Research Center

37. Appendix
35
CHINA:
“We feel lıke we are constantly beıng
monıtored.”
China is the country with the most advanced system for internet
censorship and surveillance. Despite hundreds of millions of internet users – more than in any other country – the government
manages to maintain broad control over the flow of information.
track everyone,” says Wu Fang. A common method of conveying criticism which is not allowed is to use code words,
symbols and images that the search engines do not capture,
he notes.
We hear examples of how censorship in China is exercised
in concrete terms when we talk to a free-spoken Chinese
blogger in Beijing whom we have called Wu Fang. (The
names of the people interviewed have been changed in order to conceal their identities.) He has been interviewed
about a dozen times by the police because of something he
wrote online. They have visited him at home and at work,
and on one occasion he was even summoned to the police
station. “They order you to delete what you’ve written, and
if you don’t they shut down your website. They can threaten
you by saying your family will be harmed or that you’ll lose
your job,” he says.
There are also ways of circumventing ‘the Great Firewall’
and accessing blocked foreign websites such as Facebook
and Twitter. “We use VPNs. There are different types of
software to get around the firewall. Obviously, that costs
money and your connection will be slower. But if somebody
really wants to, there’s always a way of getting around the
firewall,” explains Cheng Lian.
Wu Fang seems surprisingly unconcerned about these police visits. “So far they haven’t done anything – they’ve just
threatened,” he notes.
It is clear that the system of controls works, according to the
Chinese respondents. “In practice it’s based to a large extent on self-censorship. There’s always a limit to what risks
you’re prepared to take. You don’t want to end up in prison
because you wrote something in a blog,” explains Cheng
Lian, a woman who works on human rights issues, and who
also wishes to remain anonymous.
An important feature of this control system is search engines that identify suspicious words and combinations of
words. No one knows exactly what people are forbidden to
write, which makes internet users more cautious. But it is
clear that bringing up certain topics is not allowed: the 1989
Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwan, Falun Gong and
demands for Tibet’s independence, for example. It is also
clearly forbidden to criticise the Chinese Communist Party
or China’s political system.
Not comprehensive
The system of controls is not comprehensive. “Several hundred million Chinese use the internet, and it’s impossible to
But completely private communication online is not possible; there is no guarantee that someone is not recording
what is being said. “We feel like we are constantly being
monitored,” she says.
Greater freedom of expression nonetheless
Yet, in spite of censorship, the respondents agree that the
internet has helped boost freedom of expression in China.
“The limits of what people can say have been stretched,”
says Deng Bo, an academic specialising in human rights.
Free speech online has rubbed off on other parts of society
to some extent. “TV is still strictly controlled, but freedom
of expression in newspapers has increased somewhat,” he
feels.
“That’s right. Before, there were just newspapers and TV,
which are easy for the authorities to control. But with the
internet, the quantity of information is so vast, and just
about anyone can post information, even from other parts
of the world, which makes it very difficult to control everything.”
The authorities also understand that some criticism of society has to be allowed. “The authorities have been forced
to be more transparent. Information still trickles out, and
often it’s better for them to communicate it than have it develop into a bigger scandal,” explains Cheng Lian.