Guest Blogger: Julien Pain
The Berkman Center hosted Julien Pain this past Tuesday as our guest luncheon speaker. Julien sent us this post to share with the greater Berkman community.
Since I began working with Reporters Without Borders, I have been following the activities of the Berkman Center, and I was glad to be part of its luncheon series. The afternoon afforded me the opportunity to introduce RSF to many Internet specialists and to discuss intriguing and important issues with other participants.
Two topics seemed to be of particular interest to most participants: U.S. corporate responsibility abroad and the disadvantages and advantages of publicizing cases involving cyberdissidents.
With regard to U.S. corporate actions abroad, the majority of participants appeared to agree that U.S. corporations should recognize and respect basic ethical principles in the countries in which they operate. When countries’ laws infringe upon universal human rights such as the freedom of expression, corporations must engage in critical ethical dialogue and remember their own responsibility to defend those basic human rights, even when a repressive regime rules.
The second topic was raised by a participant’s question: Is it necessarily a good idea to draw media attention to a case? My belief is that it is a good idea to look at each individual case to make a decision. A cyber dissident might or might not receive harsher punishment if his case is publicized; it depends on the situation. In most cases, though, an absence of publicity means an absence of pressure on authorities to examine or re-examine the case. Silence can quickly lead to disappearance.
I encourage those who are interested in helping those people whose rights have been violated to avoid silence by talking and writing about the violations. Webloggers and anyone who uses the Internet have an especially powerful tool for communicating, and such efforts are not only the work of career activists, but the work of everyone.
Since I began working with Reporters Without Borders, I have been following the activities of the Berkman Center, and I was glad to be part of its luncheon series. The afternoon afforded me the opportunity to introduce RSF to many Internet specialists and to discuss intriguing and important issues with other participants.
Two topics seemed to be of particular interest to most participants: U.S. corporate responsibility abroad and the disadvantages and advantages of publicizing cases involving cyberdissidents.
With regard to U.S. corporate actions abroad, the majority of participants appeared to agree that U.S. corporations should recognize and respect basic ethical principles in the countries in which they operate. When countries’ laws infringe upon universal human rights such as the freedom of expression, corporations must engage in critical ethical dialogue and remember their own responsibility to defend those basic human rights, even when a repressive regime rules.
The second topic was raised by a participant’s question: Is it necessarily a good idea to draw media attention to a case? My belief is that it is a good idea to look at each individual case to make a decision. A cyber dissident might or might not receive harsher punishment if his case is publicized; it depends on the situation. In most cases, though, an absence of publicity means an absence of pressure on authorities to examine or re-examine the case. Silence can quickly lead to disappearance.
I encourage those who are interested in helping those people whose rights have been violated to avoid silence by talking and writing about the violations. Webloggers and anyone who uses the Internet have an especially powerful tool for communicating, and such efforts are not only the work of career activists, but the work of everyone.