Information is power. Information is a valuable resource. Information is becoming one of the battlegrounds of the 21st Century. Unlike natural resources, such as oil or water, this battle won’t be about competing powers trying to ensure unlimited access. The battle will be over how to control the dissemination of knowledge. The first public salvo in this conflict was fired last month when the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said: “Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”. This was a very public dig at the Chinese Government, who has resurrected a “Great Firewall” which blocks its citizens from accessing offensive topics, such as democracy. It was also an expression of a philosophy that the best way for society to advance is by the constant facilitation of free expression and informed debate. For me this attitude is the best way for Governments to create high-skill and high-knowledge economies.
Now, please step forward the latest country to enter this battleground: Iceland. The Parliament of this country, which has a population of 317,000, is currently debating the implementation of a radical bill to create a “journalistic haven”. As you may remember, Iceland was one of the main losers in the global economic collapse of 2008. Corporate interest rates rose to 25%, currency restrictions and foreign Government debt amounted to somewhere between 160% and 200% of GDP, and unemployment rose fast. The population was angry. How could their leaders, both political and industrial, be so reckless as to let a situation such as this happen? There were violent demonstrations in the street, the three largest banks were nationalised, and the Government collapsed. During this period a national TV station was blocked from revealing an internal document from a failed bank. Wikileaks then published these documents. The attempted stifling of information enraged the population. People were not in the mood to be censored by those who had let them down. The close relationship between Government, big companies, and the media was blamed for a lack of warning about the impending crisis and accused of trying to cover up responsibilities.
In December 2009 the founders of Wikileaks used the political mood and their newfound hero status to float the idea of creating a “journalistic haven”. To quote one of the founders: “We could just say we’re taking the source protection laws from Sweden… the first amendment from the United States, we could take Belgian protection laws for journalists; and we could pack all these together in one bundle, and make it fit for the first jurisdiction that offers the necessities of an information society.” Many Icelandic people said, “Yes please”. Thus the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) was born.
The IMMI includes strong source and whistleblower protection, airtight communications protections, strict limits on prior restraints, process protection, libel tourism protection, reinvention of the Freedom of Information Act, and the creation of ‘The Icelandic Freedom of Expression Award’. This award will be given to journalists, whistleblowers, human rights activists or publishers who have “most advanced humanity through courageous acts of free expression”. What is certain is that if the IMMI is introduced Iceland will not have any ‘Carter Ruck’ type situations. What is less clear is how this will affect press freedom in other countries. The proponents of IMMI hope that by creating a global haven for free speech Iceland will attract web news outlets, publishers, and human rights organisations. I think it is unlikely that established media groups will move all their assets to Reykjavik but I do not think that this is necessary for the UK to benefit from the IMMI. I would argue that you only need a handful of websites, such as Wikileaks, operating out of Iceland for their global vision to work. If a court in the UK gags a newspaper from publishing a story it does not mean the story is dead. There would be not much that could be done to prevent an Icelandic site from e-mailing UK subscribers the details of the injunction. The UK authorities could create their own “Great Firewall” but this illiberal action would be extremely controversial and counter-productive to the needs of our society.
It will be interesting to see how the IMMI develops and what impact it has beyond the Icelandic Sea. The post bureaucratic age is about using technology to give power and control to people, however they decide to organise themselves. This philosophy can only work if information that was previously held by a few is accessible to all. David Cameron is right to concentrate on bringing transparency to government. This is a big project, which will utilise a lot of political energy. The Icelandic experience may show the path towards part two of the post-bureaucratic age: the redistribution of power from companies to citizens. Free choice can only work if all information, both good and bad, is available. What the credit crunch taught Iceland is that companies do have an impact on the public good outside the narrow definition of GDP. The Icelandic conclusion, that this means companies should all submit themselves to a higher level of accountability, is very powerful. We should all watch this experiment with interest.
It is exciting to see a country that was depressed attempting to reinvent itself by providing a positive service to the world, using the political leverage to create a place where information can be freely exchanged in the hope that this may stop those in power from failing us again. An Icelandic MP said: “There are still very many Icelanders who feel ashamed. I think [the IMMI] is part of the self-recovery we have to go through.” I for one am very grateful to Iceland for what they are trying to do.
Related posts: