Free Speech vs. Freedom to Communicate

Do you have the right to communicate? The constitution clearly states that Americans have the right to free speech and the right to assemble. Does that mean you have the right to use the internet and phone during a protest?  After reading several articles on the Occupy Movement, the Arab Spring and other protests around the world, I start to see a disturbing double standard.


The US and many European countries are debating if they should have the power to cut phone and internet services, what opponents would consider "criminal behavior". While they support protesting and revolts in other countries--Libya, Egypt, and Syria, but not at home.

Almost all Western countries raised protest when the Egyptian government cut phone and internet service in the country, in a attempt to slow protests against the government. Shareholders of Vadophone even joined NGOs in shaming Vadophone-- the largest cellphone company in Europe, for shutting down during the Egyptian revolution. This shutdown was viewed as an assault on freedom of speech by protestors seeking more freedom.

Protestors in Eygpt used Twitter and other social networking sites to organize the protest.  This was considered so important that the US has set up the Senior State Department Officials on Internet Freedom Programs to promote access to the internet in oppressive countries. They even built an "internet in a box" app-- an app that encrypts the data sent by protestors and can wipe a phone clean of all data afterwards, to ensure that protestors could connect freely.

Fast forward to the London riots. Youth throughout London rioted after a series of disputed police shootings of a teen, after several large scale protests over university fees. Again protestors used Twitter, Google maps and Blackberry messenger to communicate.

Rioters used Blackberry messenger-- BBM servers to send messages to linkup and give updates on police attempts to stop them. Riots even setup Google maps with police movements and riot sites.  BBM was popular because all messages were encrypted and hard for police to track.

Many protestors gave their phones to friends or simply threw them away before they were arrested. This was an attempt to stop the police from reading messages and to protect other rioters -- in England even posting a message proposing that people set up a riot is a crime even if nothing happens.

The governments response to the use of technology was much different than in Egypt. The UK's Prime Minister and the police blamed social networking sites for helping the protestors and rioters organize. They called for a review of these services used during "violent riots", they even went so far as to state they should have the power to turn off these services during further riots. They stated this was necessary due to the need for law and order.

Here in the US, Bart shutdown cell phone and internet usage during protests over shootings by bart police over the past year. One of the reasons given by bart officals was that the public had a "constitutional right to safety" -- however there is no such right in the bill of rights. After a large amount of public pressure the BART Board of Directors promised a review of their cell phone service policy.

Although I believe the government should have the power and tools to ensure the safety of the general public, people have the right to communicate.  The government should not narrowly limit freedom of speech.