TVWho: Russ Baker Talks Government Internet Censorship on RT’s Going Underground

WhoWhatWhy Editor-in-Chief Russ Baker speaks with RT’s Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi

WhoWhatWhy Editor-in-Chief Russ Baker speaks with RT’s Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi

WhoWhatWhy’s Editor-in-Chief Russ Baker spoke on RT’s Going Underground about Internet censorship and how governments have reached beyond targeting terrorism sites to blocking other websites they deem radical. In this broadcast aired in the U.K. on May 7, Russ explains that governments hand the work to faceless private companies that aren’t subject to public oversight. He questions the efficacy of the policy, since intelligence agencies admit they haven’t halted a single terrorist attack through censorship. Although it addresses mainly British issues, the observations are instructive for Americans or citizens of any country facing the growing wave of government Internet control. Is censorship an effective and necessary evil or another encroachment on freedom in the name of counter-terrorism? Watch it here:

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

6 responses to “TVWho: Russ Baker Talks Government Internet Censorship on RT’s Going Underground”

  1. Cat says:

    My big fat activist dream? That investigative reporter extraordinaire, Russ Baker, gets a daily online TV news program. And that as a result, maybe just maybe to keep up, Democracy Now will begin reporting on the deep state and not their usual “acceptable dissent” fare.

  2. A number of good points in the RT interview but the simple truth of the matter seems to have been missed. I would have liked to have heard ‘RT’ asked, “Isn’t this really about suppressing the voluminous amount of truth reaching the minds of the masses rather than protecting the masses from terrorist-related web content?”

  3. Bryce says:

    Dang, Russ is a consultant on all kinds of stuff now! Rockin’ it.

  4. disqus_00YDCZxqDV says:

    You’re going a great job, Russ, keep it up!

  5. Rob says:

    I wonder if the ambiguity of their censorship is built in as a means to an end. That being control. If we are always in a state of uncertaintly over what is and isn’t “radical” then government will have just that much more power and control over our lives. If they can continue to define what is considered radical and therefore a threat on an as needed basis to whatever they feel is to their best interests at the time, so much the better. If they clearly define it up front, then we can challenge them later on if we have followed the rules. From the government’s standpoint, it works more favourably to their interests to keep those kinds of challanges to a minimum, which means keep us guessing. That’s my take.

  6. soularddave says:

    I like the way Russ addresses each of the points head-on. Direct and to the point. Very well spoken.

  7. $105101241 says:

    Very well said, Russ! Great job.