A brief but interesting debate that unveils itself on the net forum www.thefreemedia.com raises provocative questions about the use and misuse of freedom of speech on the Internet.

The Chinese language forum is meant to be an alternative platform to provide free space on the Internet for the posting of news and views. It came into being a few years ago after the silencing of critical expression in the Chinese press that followed inevitably upon MCA takeover of the Nayang Siang Pao.

The materials there make interesting reading, ranging from politics, international relation, art, and even lifestyle. Articles that have been spiked or censored by mainstream newspaper also find their way there.

Apparently, the forum has been invaded by individuals who, using various pseudonyms, allegedly inflicted linguistic violence against certain individuals and groups of people. A discussion ensued as to whether this rude invasion has violated the ethics involved in the freedom of expression intended by the net forum, and whether it is ethically justifiable to start banning such intrusion.

Somebody pointed out that an unjust act in cyberspace has implication in physical space, and the victim will suffer in real life. This is stating the obvious. Ask the popular Malaysian artiste who has been slandered and smeared on the Internet in the unfortunate debacle that is currently playing out in the Malaysian press.

Anonymity in cyber world

The seductive wonder of surfing the Internet lies in one's anonymity in doing so. Even the joy of fantasy in the assumption of an altered ego through the use of a 'handle', a username, or a nom de plume is predicated on the putative anonymity of participating in the life of the cyber world.

In his master piece the Republic, Plato tells the tale of the Ring of Gyges. A shepherd found a gold ring, which, when he put it on, could make him invisible to others. Employing this great advantage, the shepherd stole into the palace, seduced the king's wife, killed the king and took over the kingdom.

(The idea was recently stolen by Hollywood and made into a bad movie called the Invisible Man. On the whole, Tolkien made far better use of the idea, but again Hollywood made a series of bad movies out of it. Where is Plato's intellectual property right, if I may ask?)

Plato's question is till relevant today. Do people obey laws because it comes from their inner recognition of the moral good to do so, or because they are afraid of being caught and be punished?

Human nature seems to be such that, if and when people do possess the ring of invisibility, or the anonymity in cyberspace, there would always be those who would be more than tempted to not follow moral or juridical laws.

That probably explains why, for a very long time in the short life of the internet, the World Wide Web has been more like the Wild Wild Web, an anarchical virtual jungle, a digital analogue of the real Wild West, s free-for-all no-man's-land in which everything is possible, and everything is allowable.

E-mails, Internet Relay Chat, and Usenet News Groups have been abused widely for the purpose of promoting child pornography, race hate, libel, copyright violation, and consumer fraud. Hackers have caused havoc and untold financial losses as well as loss of lives. And who among us have not suffered under the daily deluge of viruses and spam mail?

I am a computer illiterate when it comes to information technology. But I get the general understanding that any centralised control over the content of the Internet is impossible. In any case, even if such technology for partial control is available, many would feel repugnance against any form of external control implemented by local or international governing bodies, because there would be very few avenues to control the controllers.

Does it mean therefore that internet ethics shall become an oxymoron, like military intelligence, or British cuisine?

A trend has recently developed to set minimum standards of moral conduct for on-line behaviour for specific or general networks on the Internet. There are informal codes of netiquette guidelines adopted by groups to establish common understanding about how they should interact with one another within the framework of their common membership.

The "Ten Commandments'

The most frequently quoted guidelines are the Ten Commandments of Internet Conduct supposedly pioneered by Arlene H Rinaldi:

1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people;
2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work;
3. Thou shalt not snoop around other people's computer files;
4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal;
5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness;
6. Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid;
7. Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorisation;
8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output;
9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the programme which you write;
10. Thou shalt use a computer in such ways that show consideration and respect.

In short, Internet ethics is but the mirror image of orthodox ethics that govern human behaviour in general. Like broad guidelines of orthodox ethics, the Ten Commandments of Internet Conduct cannot cover every real-life situation, and are subject to personal interpretations, as well as variation in ethical perceptions resulting from differing cultural traditions.

Nevertheless, we have arrived at the crux of the matter. It concerns misconception of what freedom means.

There exists among our many unthinking fellow human beings the idea that freedom is doing whatever you want without any external or internal constraint. Absence of rules and constraint is not freedom. It is licence, nihilistic lawlessness that characterises the state of being at the primitive level of existence similar to that on the Serengeti Plain.

Users of the Internet who equate freedom with licence have yet to grow out of their adolescence, or have yet to complete their process of evolution from beast to human.

They have to be told about the "from-to" structure of freedom and liberty. We seek to be free from unjustifiable constraint and hegemonic censure, but to do what?

The intentionality of the speech act determines the purpose for which the freedom is to be exercised. Every time we speak, we intend to tell the truth. If everybody intends to tell lies whenever he or she speaks, we cannot even begin to make sense of the idea of telling lies.

The nature of the speech act gives us the moral imperative that we are free only to seek and speak the truth. Any deviation from this rule is a moral crime.

What is the Truth?

But then, the question left hanging by Pontius Pilot echoes through our contemporary world of extreme relativism. What is the Truth?

We may not know all about the Truth. Perhaps the best we can have is that we have access to many small partial truths. In fact, there are many instances when we think we are speaking the absolute truth, when we have made a mistake and have merely uttered a half truth or an untruth. But it is still imperative that we must regard what we say as true, or else language becomes meaningless.

The truth-value of our spoken and written words is what imposes constraints on our linguistic behaviour. Our freedom of speech makes sense if and only if we are committed to speaking the truth, which in itself, entails and implies a whole gamut of ethical rules. On the Internet, we should make and follow rules which are more or less similar to the Ten Commandments of Internet Conduct.

If there are those who still insist on breaking those more or less universal rules of ethical conduct, we should engage them in reasonable argument. When that fails, it is up to us to take actions to limit licentious speech acts.

Therefore, I suggest that, for the anarchical jungle that is the Internet, those hosting specific web-pages has the right and duty to moderate the content the freedom for which has been made possible by the space provided. The right is not a proprietary right, but the right of every participant in the virtual world deriving from his duty to speak the truth.

Freedom of speech does not mean merely people saying anything that they want. That would be trivialising the noble idea of freedom. Freedom ought to open up channels of mutual enlightenment, build solidarity, enhance understanding, empower our fellow human beings and bring truths to the light from the semi-darkness of ignorance, prejudice and hate.