It’s a perplexing time to see the fabulous drama of the Olympic Games in Beijing while at the same time the ugly face of war in Georgia. But somewhat under the radar on both of these front page news items is the impact of the Internet.
Why anyone was surprised to learn that the Chinese government would limit Internet access during the Games is a great mystery. Everyone recognizes that China is a totalitarian government, and restricts many rights of its citizens including Internet access. Obviously when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) selected China for the 2008 Games neither the IOC nor anyone expected the Chinese to change its form of government just because it was hosting the Games. So why journalists were outraged by limits to certain websites seems strange. If the Chinese citizens were precluded from websites why should athletic journalist visiting China have special privileges that the Chinese citizens do not enjoy? Ultimately the IOC did admit they expected these Internet restrictions.
The ugly face of armed conflict in Georgia during the Olympic games was made more complicated by reports that hackers affiliated with the Russian Business Network hijacked websites of the Georgian government and websites. Clearly the ability to provide news to citizens embroiled in war zones is critical, and so these hacker attacks are not novel but rather a reminder that democracy and freedom extend a long-way into our social expectations of availability of information that we receive from the Internet.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.