This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Nearly 10 years ago I moved to London to attend graduate school. My area of study was intelligence and international security. My local Underground station was London Bridge. Although I only lived there for a year-and-a-half, London will forever remain a part of who I am.
The horrific terrorist attack which occurred in London on June 3 has weighed heavily on my heart. In an almost illogical way this terrorist attack, more than any other, felt close to home in a very tangible way. What has weighed equally heavily on my mind, however, has been Prime Minister Theresa May's speech the next morning.
How we react to these terrorist attacks will be remembered, and judged, by history. But more than that, how we react to these terrorist attacks will actually determine the future. Our collective past is full of watershed moments where the course of humanity was altered in inextricable ways. Some of these watershed moments were just that, moments — single solitary incidents. More often these watershed moments were prolonged — years of events leading to those single solitary incidents.
In her speech, May laid out four ways that she believes things need to change. It is the second of these four ways which cause my concern. "We cannot allow this ideology [extremism] the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide. We need to ... regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorist planning."
Yes, the internet allows terrorists to share information and to indoctrinate potential terrorists. It acts as a medium of communication to organize attacks. At the same time, the internet may also provide information that could deter these attacks, could prevent further radicalization, and acts as a forum that may be infiltrated by intelligence organizations. The internet is the world's largest marketplace of ideas.
By regulating the internet as May calls for, we give up our values in a way that may become a watershed moment and forever alter the course of history. We literally and figuratively lose a part of who we are as a civilized society. We restrict freedoms in a way that allow for more and more regulation. Soon the regulations have a stranglehold over us all to the point where our freedoms have been lost. Indeed, these regulations are the first step to allowing the terrorists to win.
These regulations also would likely activate more terrorism than they would prevent. One of the root causes of terrorism is that people feel oppressed and as if they are not respected. They feel as if they are second-class citizens in this world. Individuals who feel oppressed would feel even more oppressed and as if they have nobody to turn to. And so they would search harder to find individuals who speak to them — the individuals they find would be more radicalized, more hidden and more dangerous.
These regulations would force the moderate voices out of the discussion and allow the extreme voices to control the conversation. Once again, these regulations are the first step to allowing the terrorists to win.
In the hours and days after these appalling events it is natural to want to do something, to do anything, to stop this from happening again. But if we make these in-the-heat-of-the-moment decisions we give up a part of who we are. We express our true values when we stand for them during times of adversity.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And that is exactly what would happen should we follow through with greater internet regulation; we would have neither the essential liberty of freedom of speech and association nor safety.
Sage Bludworth, Salt Lake City, has an M.A. in intelligence and international security from King's College London (2009) and a Juris Doctorate from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah (2016).