query: Transparency prevents public relations disasters  Transparency is necessary to avoid public relations disasters; particularly in countries where the media has some freedom to investigate for themselves. It is clearly the best policy for the military to make sure all the information is released along with the reasons behind actions rather than having the media finding individual pieces of a whole and speculating to fill the gaps.  A good example would be a collision on 16th January 1966 between a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker while attempting to refuel that destroyed both planes. Accidents happen, and this one cost 11 lives, but could have been much worse as the B-52 had four nuclear bombs on board were not armed and did not detonate. In this case an initial lack of information rapidly turned into a public relations disaster that was stemmed by much more openness by the military and the US Ambassador in Spain. The release of the information reduces the room for the press to fill in the gaps with harmful speculation. [1] In this case there was never much chance of national security implications or a break with Spain as the country was ruled by the dictator Franco, someone who would hardly pay attention to public opinion. But in a democracy a slow and closed response could seriously damage relations.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.65

positive: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms This is clearly not always the case. Often transparency means that the public becomes aware when there is little need for them to know. There had been previous nuclear accidents that had caused no damage, and had not been noticed, such as in Goldsboro, N.C. in 1961. [1] If there had been a media frenzy fuelled by released information there would clearly have been much more of a public relations disaster than there was with no one noticing. Since there’re was no harm done there is little reason why such a media circus should have been encouraged. And even without media attention the incident lead to increase safeguards.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.51

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Clearly transparency in real time might cause some problems allowing the disruption of ongoing operations. However most of the time information could be released very shortly afterwards rather than being considered secret for 25-30 years. [1] A much shorter timeframe is needed if the transparency is to have any meaning or impact upon policy. In the case of WikiLeaks most of the information was already a couple of years old and WikiLeaks said it made sure that there was no information that could endanger lives released.  We should also remember that a lack of transparency can also endanger lives; this might be the case if it leads to purchases of equipment of shoddy equipment without the proper oversight to ensure everything works as it should. For example many countries purchased bomb detectors that are made out of novelty golf ball finders, just plastic, that do not work from a Briton looking to make a fast buck. It has for example been used to attempt to find car bombs in Iraq. A little transparency in testing and procurement could have gone a long way in protecting those who have to use the equipment. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.8  [2] AFP, ‘Iraq still using phony bomb detectors at checkpoints’, globalpost, 3 May 2013

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency helps reduce international tension  Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war.  The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness.  Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2]  [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013  [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013

negative: The military can only be held to account if there is transparency  States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions.  This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people.  [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009.  [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

negative: If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms In security too much transparency endangers lives  Transparency is all very well when it comes to how much is being spent on a new tank, aircraft, or generals houses, but it is very different when it comes to operations. Transparency in operations can endanger lives. With intelligence services transparency would risk the lives of informants; it is similar with the case of interpreters for US forces in Iraq who were targeted after they were told they could not wear masks because they are considered to be traitors. [1]  In military operations being open about almost anything could be a benefit to the opposition. Most obviously things like the timing and numbers involved in operations need to be kept under wraps but all sorts of information could be damaging in one way or another. Simply because a state is not involved in a full scale war does not mean it can open up on these operations. This is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen in response to WikiLeaks said “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing… But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” [2]  [1] Londoño, Ernesto, ‘U.S. Ban on Masks Upsets Iraqui Interpreters’, Washington Post, 17 November 2008  [2] Jaffe, Greg, and Partlow, Joshua, ‘Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans’, Washington Post, 30 July 2010

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency can lead to conflict  The idea that transparency is good assumes that the people watching the government be transparent are likely to provide a moderating influence on policy. This is not always the case. Instead transparency can lead to more conflict.  First a nationalist population may force the government into taking more action than it wants. One obvious way to quiet such sentiment is to show that the country is not ready for war; something that may not be possible if being transparent. Instead if it is transparent that the military could win then there is nothing to stop a march to war. It then becomes possible for multiple interest groups to form into coalitions each with differing reasons for conflict trading off with each other resulting in overstretch and conflict. [1]  Secondly when there is a rapidly changing balance of power then transparency for the rising power may not be a good thing. Instead as Deng Xiaoping advised they should “Hide your strength, bide your time”. [2] Showing in the open how your military is expanding may simply force action from the current dominant power. Transparency, combined with domestic media worrying about the other’s build up can make the other side seem more and more of a threat that must be dealt with before it can get any more powerful. It is quite a common international relations theory that one way or another relative power and the quest for hegemony is the cause for war, [3] transparency simply encourages this. William C. Wohlforth points out when studying the cause of the First World War that it is perception of relative power that matters. Germany’s leaders believed it had to strike before it out of time as a result of Russia rapidly industrialising. [4] Transparency unfortunately reduces the ability of the government to manage perception.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.17  [2] Allison, Graham, and Blackwill, Robert D., ‘Will China Ever Be No.1?’, YakeGlobal, 20 February 2013  [3] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, The Atlantic, 20 December 2011  [4] Wohlforth, William C., ‘The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance’, World Politics, Vol.39, No.3, (April 1987), pp.353-381, p.362

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms The public is rational and can make its own assessment of risk. The best course in such cases is transparency and education. If all relevant information is released, along with analysis as to the risk presented by the threat, then the public can be best informed about what kind of threats they need to be prepared for. Terrorism has been blown out of proportion because they are single deadly incidents that are simple to report and have a good narrative to provide 24/7 coverage that the public will lap up. [1] As a result there has been much more media coverage than other threats. It can then be no surprise that the public overestimate the threat posed by terrorism as the public are told what risks are relevant by the amount of media coverage. [2]  [1] Engelhardt, Tom, ‘Casualties from Terrorism Are Minor Compared to Other Threats’, Gale Opposing Viewpoints, 2011  [2] Singer, Eleanor, and Endreny, Phyllis Mildred, Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993

negative: Compelling public bodies to publish information ensures that non-citizens, minors, foreign nationals and others have access to information that affects them.  Genuine transparency and accountability of government action is not only in the interests of those who also have the right to vote for that government or who support it through the payment of taxes. The functioning of immigration services would seem to be a prime example. Maximising access to information relating to government decisions by dint of its automatic publication of information relating to those decisions ensures that all those affected will have recourse to the facts behind any decision.  If, for example, a nation’s aid budget is cut or redirected, why should the citizens of the affected nation not have a right to know why [i] ? If, as is frequently the case, it has happened because of an action or inaction by their own government, then it is important that they know. Equally if such a decision were taken for electoral gain, they at least have the right to know that there is nothing they or their government could do about it.  [i] Publish What You Fund: The Global Campaign For Aid Transparency. Website Introduction.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything.  [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013

negative: Historical precedent.  Historically, governments have always controlled the access to information and placed restriction on media during times of war. This is an entirely reasonable policy and is done for a number of reasons: to sustain morale and prevent predominantly negative stories from the battlefield reaching the general public, and to intercept propaganda from the enemy, which might endanger the war effort [1] . For example, both Bush administrations imposed media blackouts during wartime over the return of the bodies of dead American soldiers at Dover airport [2] . The internet is simply a new medium of transmitting information, and the same principles can be applied to its regulation, especially when the threat to national security is imminent, like in the case of disseminating information for the organization of a violent protest.  [1] Payne, Kenneth. 2005. “The Media as an Instrument of War”. Parameters, Spring 2005, pp. 81-93.  [2] BBC, 2009. “US War Dead Media Blackout Lifted”.

negative: Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped.  It is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years. [i] Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses. [ii]  For it to genuinely help with the transparency and accountability of public agencies it would require inordinately detailed and precise cataloguing and indexing – a process that would be likely to be both time consuming and expensive. The choice would, therefore, be between a mostly useless set of data that would require complex mining by those citizens who were keen to use it or the great expense of effectively cataloguing it in advance. Even this latter option would defeat the objective of greater accountability because whoever had responsibility for the cataloguing would have far greater control of what would be likely to come to light.  Instead ensuring a right of access for citizens ensures that they can have a reasonable access to exactly the piece of information they are seeking [iii] .  [i] Eddy, Nathan, ‘Big Data Still a Big Challenge for Government IT’, eweek, 8th May 2012,   [ii] Sparrow, Andrew, ‘September 11: ‘a good day to bury bad news’’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2001,   [iii] Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right. Toby Mendel, Head of Law at Article 19.

negative: It is true that newspapers cannot adapt as quickly as other types of media to breaking news events, however there are advantages to having slower news. Reporting news events immediately as they happen often leads to speculation as the bigger picture is often unknown by the journalists, therefore having time to digest the given event can allow for more accurate and detailed reporting rather than broadcasting facts which may not be immediately confirmable, a longer time before publication then is likely to result in more accurate, less speculative information. For example many TV news outlets were reporting, when the first plane to hit the World Trade Center on the 11th September, that it was an unfortunate accident. It of course later emerged to be the work of terrorists.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Don’t panic!  The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre.  While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3]  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013  [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013  [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011

negative: It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies.  The right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association [i] .  Unless there is reason to suspect corruption, why should law-abiding citizens who sell goods and services to public bodies have the full details of their negotiations made public for their other buyers, who may have got a worse deal, to see? Why should the memo sent by an otherwise competent official on a bad day be made available for her neighbours to read over? A presumption in favour of publication would ensure that all of these things, and others, would be made a reality with the force of law behind them.  This would place additional burdens on government in terms of recruitment and negotiations with private firms – not to mention negotiations with other governments with less transparent systems. Let’s assume for the moment that the British government introduced a system, it is quite easy imagine a sense of “For God’s sake don’t tell the British” spreading around the capitals of the world fairly quickly.  [i] Section 40 0(A) od the FOIA. See also Freedom of Information Act Environmental Information Regulations. When Should Salaries be Disclosed? Information Commissioner’s Office.

negative: free challenge house believes julian assange journalist A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries. Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result. [1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy.  [1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011,

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency prevents, or corrects, mistakes  Transparency is fundamental in making sure that mistakes don’t happen, or when they do that they are found and corrected quickly with appropriate accountability. This applies as much, if not more, to the security apparatus than other walks of life. In security mistakes are much more likely to be a matter of life and death than in most other walks of life. They are also likely to be costly; something the military and national security apparatus is particularly known for. [1] An audit of the Pentagon in 2011 found that the US Department of Defense wasted $70 billion over two years. [2] This kind of waste can only be corrected if it is found out about, and for that transparency is necessary.  [1] Schneier, Bruce, ‘Transparency and Accountability Don’t Hurt Security – They’re Crucial to It’, The Atlantic, 8 May 2012  [2] Schweizer, Peter, ‘Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget’, The Daily Beast, 22 May 2012

negative: Yes the military has to be accountable but this does not mean that it is directly accountable to the people. Instead the military is accountable to the civilian leadership of the country who is then in turn accountable to the people. The people designate their politicians; their head of state and government as well as minister of defence to control the most senior members of the military. [1] This means that while the military must be transparent it is only necessary for it to be transparent to the civilian government which is at the top of the chain of command not to the people as a whole.  [1] Feaver, Peter D., Armed Servants Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, Harvard University Press, 2005, p.5.

negative: Even if it is protecting lives the scale of the intelligence gathering is undemocratic. By allowing interception, widespread tracking of public records, unfair legal treatment, we erase the trust between citizens and the government in return for very occasionally preventing a terrorist attack. As shown by 7/7 terrorists still get through despite intelligence even when the bombers have already been noticed. [1] When all your library patrons can be seized and all your browsing logs checked just on a claim that they are relevant to intelligence information, as initially happened under the patriot act, too much liberty is being given up in the name of very little extra security. [2]  [1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’,   [2] Strossen, Nadine, ‘Safety and Freedom: Common Concerns for Conservatives, Libertarians, and Civil Libertarians’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 1, Fall 2005,  p.78

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Coalitions can form behind expansionist policies regardless of whether there is transparency. If there is no transparency then it is simply an invitation for these groups to overestimate the strength of their own state compared to their opponents. Where there is transparency the figures will at least be available to counter their arguments. It should not be surprising that interest groups do not have as much influence in creating expansionist policy in democracies. [1]  Transparency showing when a state is to be eclipsed is a greater concern but a lack of transparency in such a case is just as bad. No transparency will simply encourage the fears of the state that is to be eclipsed that the rising state is hostile and not to be trusted.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.18

negative: Open expression  If ever there were a situation where free expression should be assumed, this is surely it. Where no harm can come of knowing something (Prop appears to accept this by saying the outcome can’t be changed) what possible reason could there be suppressing the information? [i] The only possible reason would seem to be that it is more convenient for that small group of people, those currently both living and powerful, that the true details of past events not emerge.  If this is the case then the other arguments for free speech come into play, particularly its role in holding the powerful to account.  Either way, proposition loses; if it’s just the minutiae of bygone times, then why not release it, if it’s the stuff of modern day political discourse then the failure to publish it is tantamount to tyranny. To take oppositions own example will learning that Churchill wanted Hitler’s lieutenants executed without trial will this really affect people’s opinions of Churchill? It seems unlikely, many would have similar opinions in the same situation and will be able to understand Churchill’s position.  [i] This principle – that all things being equal there should be a presumption in favour of publication – has been argued in different ways in different countries. A useful example is the US Supreme Court Ruling in the matter of the New York Times vs The United States.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013

negative: Is it really in the public interest that there should be a norm that government information should be shared? There are clearly some areas where we do not want our government to share information; most clearly in the realm of security, [1] but also where the government and through them taxpayers can make a profit out of the product that the government has created. If the government creates a new radar system for the navy does it not make sense that they should be able to sell it at a profit for use by other country’s shipping? Also, the abundance of piracy online is not a reason to submit to the pirates and give them free access to information they should not receive.  [1] See ‘ This House believes transparency is necessary for security ’

negative: This might be a valid argument if the leaked military secrets really were putting lives in danger, but this is not the case in this particular instance. In Israel there is a military censor which newspapers submit articles that might affect national security to and that censor takes out anything it believes to be harmful to state security. [1] All the materials that were published by Haaretz went first through Haaretz’s editors and then this military censor [2] so if there really were any military secrets published that could have put lives in danger the censors were negligent in their job.  [1] Sobelman, Batsheva, ‘Q&A Censorship in Israel: ‘A unique model’’, Los Angeles Times, 3 May 2010.  [2] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

negative: The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.  Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.  Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.

negative: free speech and privacy health general international africa politics Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.

negative: Individuals do not have the right to decide what information should be publicly available.  No individual is empowered to decide for themselves what information should be publicly available and certainly not a 23 year old student. A conscript like Kamm will have little idea of the context, whether operations have taken place, or even often what the information they are leaking means. Without all the facts of each case they are in no position to judge if a particular document is in the public interest. They therefore won’t know the consequences of the information they are leaking which in a military situation could mean lives being lost. This is why militaries have systems for declassifying information; so that when it is done it does not cause any harm.  As Sarah Honig writing in the Jerusalem Post argues “We could kiss our entire national defense good-bye if each and every soldier would do likewise with no guideline but his/her own youthful hubris.” [1]  [1] Honig, Sarah, ‘Another Tack: Loose lips sink ships’, JPost.com, 23 April 2010.

negative: People have a right to know where their information comes from  Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.  [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013,

negative: Much media reporting of private lives is not being done under a watchdog mandate but rather to simply titillate the audience with gossip which is unnecessary for the public to know. Having distinct rules as to what can and cannot be reported is important to protect the lives of public figures who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Such firm distinctions between what is public and private and what can and cannot be reported will of course on occasion limit the press from unveiling a story which may be very important for the world to know about. However, on the whole, what such regulation would do is ensure that the vast majority of reporting which is of no use to the public and is being published at the detriment of someone’s private life is severely restricted, if not eliminated. This is the ethical thing to do as it ensures that the right to privacy is universal.

negative: In such instances, clearly nations will pursue their national interest but, just to take Prop’s example, the ICJ [i] spends most of its time dealing with disputes about maritime law, mostly ownership issues. They work on the basis of investigation and fact. Suppressing information would clearly only be an attempt to reduce the information available so as to prevent an unbiased judgement. To take the Senkaku/Daioyu example yes the China’s may have some documents conceding Japanese sovereignty but that does not end the dispute. Nor would losing the case in such a dispute be a real threat to the national security of either side; the territory and resources would be nice to have but are not vital for either’s economy or security. So Proposition has yet to give an example of where there would be a clear issue of national security – or even national interest in hiding history.  [i] International Criminal Court of Justice website. Contentious Cases

negative: Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.


query: Only regulation can mitigate harms  It is where the sites operate, not where they are set up that matters for regulation. It is in gambling sites interest to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. Regulation will mean that sites will have to verify the age of their users and prevent problem gamblers from accessing their site. When there is regulation consumers will go to the sites that are verified by their government and are providing a legal, safe service [13].

positive: business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression It is only in the interests of big gambling sites that aim to create a long term business to go along with tough regulation. Online gambling sites can get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers. In the real world governments can ban bets being taken from children and drunks. They can make sure that the odds are not changed to suit the House. And they can check that people running betting operations don’t have criminal records. In online gambling on the other hand 50% of players believe that internet casino’s cheat [14].

negative: Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction  Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home, and online gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. In the United States in 1999 the National Gambling Impact Study stated "the high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem and pathological gambling",1 and it is estimated that 75% of internet gamblers are problem gamblers, compared with 20% of those who visit casinos.  It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler – there have been several cases of people (including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online.  Online gambling sites can also get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers.  1 Skolnik, Sam, High Stakes: the Rising Cost of America’s Gambling Addiction, Beacon Press, 2011, Chapter 5

negative: business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression Cant enforce an online gambling ban  Governments can’t actually do anything to enforce a ban on the world wide web. Domestic laws can only stop internet companies using servers and offices in their own country. They cannot stop their citizens going online to gamble using sites based elsewhere. Governments can try to block sites they disapprove of, but new ones will keep springing up and their citizens will find ways around the ban. So practically there is little the government can do to stop people gambling online. Despite it being illegal the American Gambling Association has found that 4% of Americans already engage in online gambling [11].

negative: It is impossible to effectively ban gambling  When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal, this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling operations were established, where 6,000 slot machines were confiscated and 216 criminal charges were made in connection to illegal gambling.1 This illustrates how banning gambling can creates a thriving underground market.  It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests he or she is spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card.  1 Kyiv Post, ‘Governmental checks expose over 500 facts of illegal operation of gambling establishments’, 20 July 2009.

negative: The ISPs would not be defining the parameters of what constitutes extremism; they would simply be interpreting the parameters that are given to them by government. They do not need to gauge the extent of the harm from a site simply determine whether it falls within the kind of site they are to be blocking. There would be no expectation that the ISPs would need to work out complex cost-benefit analyses. ISPs, as the purveyors of the internet are perfectly capable of policing their own service, and are well-placed to do so because they manage the software that feeds the internet service. Furthermore, as private agents providing a service, they retain the right to alter the extent of that service if they see fit to do so.

negative: business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression Governments have the power to ban online gambling in their own country. Even if citizens could use foreign websites, most will not choose to break the law. When the United States introduced its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 gambling among those of college-age fell from 5.8% to 1.5% [12]. Blocking the leading websites will also be effective, as it makes it very hard for them to build a trusted brand. And governments can stop their banks handling payments to foreign gambling companies, cutting off their business.

negative: The notion that the print media has lost its power since the emergence of the Internet is simply untrue. Not only are they still a major source of news for many – they are particularly a source of news for other news-makers. Blogs and other exclusively online sites rarely ‘break’ stories – with the exception of those that act in the same way as regular print editions such as the Huffington Post. Identifying those news outlets that are large enough to be registered companies is really not beyond the wit on humankind equally, imposing the regulations on those already covered by libel legislation would seem fairly obvious.

negative: Demographic/profile-based advertising fundamentally alters the experience of the internet for people of different backgrounds  When the experience of the internet differs between people because of their backgrounds and past activities, the position of the online experience as one free of informational prejudice is undermined. It is important that the internet and the sites and services that float around it be as free from external prejudicing that contemporary targeted marketing creates. This marketing shapes at the most basic level the internet experience people interact with, and as it differs between people the quality of the universal service is diminished in a way. [1] This is particularly problematic when that internet experience is designed to differentiate between people of differing demographic backgrounds, which serve only to heighten divisions between these groups. The internet should remain a neutral space.  [1] Cartagena, R. “Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting – Behavioural Advertisers Beware”. eCommerce Times. 19 December 2011,

negative: Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.

negative: This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.  There are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.  The idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.  Equally start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.

negative: e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports Threats to Freeware, Shareware and Objectivity  There are very real concerns that ISPs have a commercial interest in guiding people away from certain sites – especially when those sites provide services or products for nothing when the ISP or a related company charges for a competing product. File sharing more generally is an obvious target. The example of Comcast against NetFlix and other file sharing sites is simply the most obvious [i] .  There are also concerns about the impact on objectivity more generally; the Internet works most effectively as a tool because it is, by definition cross-referencing. Although there are many mistakes on many sources as a whole it is possible to reach something resembling the truth. Essentially, “We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” [ii] Making some sites more accessible than others reduces users’ choice and their ability to check multiple sites so preventing this cross-referencing.  [i] A useful overview of some of the more notorious examples can be found here .  [ii] Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism

negative: ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block  As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.

negative: ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism  ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.  [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012.

negative: While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.

negative: Internet anonymity increases cyberbullying and trolling  In normal social life, people restrain themselves in what they say to others. When anonymously online, people behave differently: whatever they say and do can be said and done without consequence, because it isn’t traceable to them as persons, or, as comic artist John Gabriel is often paraphrased 'Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiot’. [1]  The consequences of this behaviour are ugly or downright harmful. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMPORGs) like World of Warcraft face a constant atmosphere of verbal abuse created by their players. And there’s worse than simple trolling like this: anonymity increases the effects bullying. For example, where schoolchildren originally were bullied in schools by bullies whose faces they knew, with online anonymity the bullying goes on anonymously online and invades every aspect of the victims’ lives – aggravating their suffering so much that in some cases they actually commit suicide, as for example did Canadian teenager Amanda Todd. [2]  That’s why organizations maintaining online communities, whether they be social networking sites like Facebook, MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and newspaper sites like The Guardian should (legally) be required to (publicly) verify the person behind an account or take it offline if it remains anonymous, as New York senators recently proposed. [3]  [1] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL:   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Amanda Todd: Bullied Canadian Teen Commits Suicide After Prolonged Battle Online And In School’, October 11, 2012. URL:   [3] Wired, ‘New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech’, May 22, 2012. URL:

negative: Reducing currently illegal activity.  Internet anonymity is very useful for planning and organising illegal activity, mostly buying and selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms, stolen goods, or child pornography, but also, in more extreme cases, for terrorism or assassinations. This is because it can be useful in making plans and advertisements public, thus enabling wider recruitment and assistance, while at the same time preventing these plans from being easily traced back to specific individuals. [1] For example, the website Silk Road openly offers users the opportunity to buy and sell illegal drugs. Sales on this site alone have double over the course of six months, hitting $1.7million per month. [2]  This policy makes it easier for the police to track down the people responsible for these public messages, should they continue. If anonymity is still used, it will be significantly easier to put legal pressure on the website and its users, possibly even denying access to it. If anonymity is not used, obviously it is very easy to trace illegal activity back to perpetrators. In the more likely event that they do not continue, it at least makes organising criminal activities considerably more difficult, and less likely to happen. This means the rule of law will be better upheld, and citizens will be kept safer. [3]  [1] Williams, Phil, ‘Organized Crime and Cyber-Crime: Implications for Business’, CERT, 2002,   p.2  [2] ‘Silk Road: the online drug marketplace that officials seem powerless to stop.’ The Guardian. URL:   [3] ‘Do dark networks aid cyberthieves and abusers?’ BBC News. URL:

negative: Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.  The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries.  What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-  .  1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011  2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011

negative: business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit  Governments are hypocritical about gambling. They say they don’t like it but they often use it for their own purposes. Sometimes they only allow gambling in certain places in order to boost a local economy. Sometimes they profit themselves by running the only legal gambling business, such as a National Lottery [15] or public racecourse betting. This is bad for the public who want to gamble. Online gambling firms can break through government control by offering better odds and attractive new games.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Internet users rely on high visibility for their comments to be significant. When Twitter is shut down, or its replacement, the new sites that pop up must start again in building numbers. [1] Without sufficient numbers on the network they will be able to build up momentum for riots online. The result is a significant blunting of the network’s ability to develop or act in a riot scenario; a site is not useful for directing riots if most of those who would riot or are rioting are not on that network.  [1] Berger, J.M., “#unfollow”, Foreign policy, 20 February 2013.

negative: Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated  What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?

negative: If restrictions on the sale of alcohol can be effective, there is no reason to believe restrictions on violent video games cannot also be similarly effective. The primary role of a government is, ultimately, to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. It is considered acceptable and beneficial for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts. Though illegal downloading programmes would permit the download of old, violent action games, video game creators would nevertheless be forced to turn their creative capacities and technology towards better, less violent games that would, over a short space of time, saturate the market.

negative: It would be nice to think that, at least at some level, sponsors offer sponsorship out of a desire to give something back to the customers who create vast profits for them but perhaps that is naïve. Ultimately, however, this exercise in ownership has been counter-productive. It would be difficult to imagine an ‘ambush advertising’ action that would come close to inflicting the damage on corporate reputations that the bad press surrounding this issue has generated. From the point of view of sponsors, this was a real example of the best getting in the way of the good. The net result has been that nobody has benefitted as they could have if the sponsors had not been so set on exclusivity of association.

negative: People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so.

negative: Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds will likely stimulate wider protectionism anyway if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.

negative: Government is about taking tough decisions rather than pandering to majoritarian whims. Legislation such as this protect industries in the creative, IT, manufacturing and medical sectors. The support it has garnered among trades union demonstrates that they, at least, recognise that it is about protecting jobs. It is no surprise that many people prefer to buy products that are cheap – or better, free – but government has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its citizens with rather more enthusiasm that the right to download free movies. It would be interesting to see where the democratic deficit goes when entire industries start collapsing because of counterfeiting.

negative: There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.

negative: Criminalisation will prevent radicalisation by stopping users accessing the most extreme content. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook already police themselves and are unlikely to allow extremist materials to remain online for extended periods in the face of public pressure. [1] It is for extremist websites where public pressure can have no effect that needs the law to step in by punishing those who are regularly visiting those sites and being radicalised by them.  [1] Google, ‘Our approach to free expression and controversial content’, googleblog, 9 March 2012.

negative: The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped  The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information. [1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised. [2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks.  [1] Gross, Doug, ‘What the Internet is hiding from you’, CNN, 19 May 2011.  [2] Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M., ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. JPSP, 1979, no.37, pp.2098-2109. Summary from faculty.babson.edu.

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.  In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.  [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009,  on 16/09/11  [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010,  on 16/09/11  [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008,  09/09/11

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation  First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine.  Secondly, the consumer has ample time to change his or her behaviour: a consumer can insist on infringing copyright at least two times before the sanction takes place. The consumer can easily avoid being cut off (even temporarily), meaning the punishment likely doesn’t even have to take place. [1]  [1] Barry Sookman, ‘Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times’, January 10th, 2010. URL:

negative: It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have gotten unfairly and without permission?

negative: Legalization has benefits for society  Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial. In particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the communities in which they operated. By allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers, clients, and business owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their communities. Sex businesses and workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees. Business owners would be expected to comply with standard business laws and regulations. Moreover, the government could enact special regulations appropriate to this industry, such as age restrictions on workers and clients, and mandatory condom use.  The resources that are currently allocated to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and clients could be reallocated for better uses. For example, these resources could be used to better address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and the many public and individual needs that go unmet.

negative: To use such websites governments already need to be committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources and harness the internet only for continued repression 1.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010