I myself sent my first e-mail ever from a university desktop in London in black and white (with shades of green as it were) and was stunned by the advent of technology. When a few years later I would be asked how I would describe the net, I would reply by saying that to me it is basically nothing more than the global yellow pages, albeit in color.By now I can hardly imagine living without our worldwide news feeds, networking sites and, of course, e-mail at home and on the move. Booking a hotel in Turkey is as easy as buying a mini-swimming pool for your daughter in England, all online of course and most likely cheaper, too! Companies can submit tenders electronically. Your favorite football club sends you team updates, and you are able to check the weather back home if far away. I sometimes "buy" my newspapers online as well as submit my columns from a wireless connection if away from the office. Sounds easy, safe and unproblematic, or does it?
The Internet is by definition borderless, truly global and must remain so. Governments that cannot handle the free flow of information that their citizens are allowed to access without censorship are making a huge mistake. As everyone in Turkey knows, there are many ways to override a local ban imposed on certain Web sites; simply click on another Web site. Why would a country want to restrict free access to the Internet when it cannot be restricted in the first place?
From 1999 (Copenhagen) to the confirmation of the start date for EU accession talks, many things have changed in this enterprising and fascinating country. More change will come over time. Change must be managed, true. But free access to global information in Turkey is a key ingredient of modernization and not a threat; neither is free access to information on Turkey when demanded by Internet users abroad.
So what is the recent debate on banning Web sites all about? If one site is closed down, another will pick up exactly the same content and perhaps more. Legislators seem to have been hibernating in the mid-90s when this technological revolution began. Modern citizens are clever. Coming from the United Kingdom, which I would describe as probably the most liberal country in Europe -- but where citizen have many duties, too -- banning Web sites unless they portray terrorism or illegal acts is a non-starter. For example, regulators can and should define what is deemed as "inciting hatred."
Educated citizens know very well how to handle the flow of information. A person who normally watches satellite football on the net will not swap hats and join a radical political group only because "theoretically" there may be a Web site out there. I am not talking about terror-promoting Web sites, simply sites that offer views differing from our own. Where do we draw the line? Before the net, these people openly distributed their leaflets on our streets, and we still did not buy into their ideas. Closing down political parties, newspapers and journals would be the next step after banning Web sites.
Governments should not take on board what is clearly a parental domain. Adults have learned how to make good use of electronically submitted information and must teach their children about it. How can we defend our emerging knowledge-based economy, asking for broadband Internet access everywhere, if its contents are censored? Do not get me wrong: There is a difference between Web sites selling flowers and those detailing how to make a bomb. Let us approach the real culprits who misuse the net, but these are the absolute minority. What would come next -- banning the BBC and satellite TV?
