• 
• 

Published on September 1, 2007

While I was enjoying watching clip after clip on YouTube to celebrate its return, it struck me that the website is such a good place to start for the practice of freedom of speech in the cyberspace era.

YouTube is simply a must for entertainment on the Net. Whatever your interest - sports, music, movies or celebrities - YouTube has it all. Shortly after I heard of the ban being lifted, I went straight to watch Francesc Fabregas's goal for Arsenal during the Champions League competition in Prague. Surely, many others in Thailand had their eyes glued to the screen watching different videos while I was enjoying my Arsenal moment.

But not all Arsenal games are on offer. The website no longer provides video clips of the English premiership because it has been accused of copyright violation.

Call it an issue of contesting rights. YouTube's fans have the right to post their clips from the matches, while millions of others have the right to view them freely. On the other hand, the English Premiership also claims rights over its products. The league also tries to protect its partners, who legally purchase international broadcasting rights for the top English football league. The debate over rights is never simple, especially for a new animal like YouTube.

So which rights holders will prevail? Freedom of speech is universal but, as it states in the constitutions of various countries including Thailand, it is not an absolute right, although it is a fundamental one. Reservations on freedom of speech are made to protect the rights of the other party. Freedom of speech has degrees - it doesn't allow anyone to deliver hate speech or to maliciously attack a particular gender, sex, race, religion or nationality.

Interpreting the matter as one of "natural rights" without taking any legal specifics into account, and everyone agrees that you can enjoy exercising your freedom of speech as long as it doesn't affect the rights of others. It is as natural as that.

YouTube has placed itself in a challenging position here. The website offers members a service and honours their right to free expression. It has its own set of values, which of course include freedom of expression, and an anti-obscenity stance. Take the natural-rights approach, and it is now not natural if someone is affected by the contents of a given video.

Apart from England's Premier League, the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) and an alliance of Japanese television broadcasters have also protested against YouTube, saying the website has infringed on their rights. The NMPA has filed a suit against YouTube for its "knowingly misappropriating" its videos for the website's own gain.

Likewise, the Thai government blamed YouTube for violating the rights of Thai people by "knowingly" allowing offensive videos on their site, in the same manner as that which prompted the Premier League and NMPA to take legal action against Google.

The tricky part is that the ban on YouTube instantly puts the Thai government in the position of a rights violator, as it prevented the Thai public from accessing information. It has received brickbats in return for infringing on the rights of net users in Thailand.

If the Information and Communications Technology Ministry had not banned YouTube, the ministry would not have been considered a champion of rights, because the producer of the video mocking the monarchy had exercised free speech in a manner that was also insulting to all Thais. As a host, YouTube was forced to weigh the rights of one person to free expression and the rights of millions of Thais. Insulting anyone - not necessarily a prophet, pope or a country's leader - or making false accusations against them does not fall under free speech by any country's legal standard.

The beauty of rights is that they are so natural, you need only your human interest to know what they are. You can't just insult anyone because you feel like exercising your right to freedom of speech; you know well that you are not entitled to do so. Act badly and you are in trouble, and you learn that naturally as you grow up.

YouTube is facing a dilemma, as it must strike a balance between championing free speech and being a responsible global citizen in respecting the rights of others.

After going through video after video and enjoying the return of YouTube, I have some questions that Google may like to discuss:

l Is it okay to protect the right to freedom of speech of a video producer while ignoring the rights and freedoms of millions of Thai citizens?"

l Is it appropriate that a person is able to ridicule or make false accusations against someone in a YouTube video and get away with it in the name of free speech?

l Where is the balance between the rights of various parties in cyberspace when your website is accessible around the world?

l Should the website pay more attention to diverse cultural sensitivities?

l As a host, should you take responsibility for the possible effects of your video?

Although YouTube is still in its infancy as far as these issues are concerned, I really hope they find a balance and do so in the best interests of its members, while protecting the rights of everyone involved. I don't really mind missing some Arsenal goals from the Premier League as long as I can view other clips for free and exercise my right to freedom of speech without infringing on the rights of anyone else.

 Veena Thoopkrajae