First read the short piece by Dale.
Then read the more extensive but not extremely long one, by McQ.
From Dale's post:
Tyrants fear the very idea of common people expressing their opinion and sharing information. And the UN is all too often overly solicitous of the wishes of tyrants. That's reason enough to tell the UN to back off.
Maybe I'm just an incorrigable skeptic, but when I see phrases describing a world summit like, "which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world", I can't help but translate it as, "which aims to screw the US out of its control of something it invented".
Nothing new here. Europe has been envious and jealous of the U.S. from the days of its inception. Throughout this country's history there has been an element in Europe that has openly resented the U.S., for our successes at things they failed.
Obviously "the world" is of the opinion that it has a better idea, you know, government intervention. Oh and don't forget UN intervention too. Nothing like having your internet access and content subject to the veto of Botswana who's a guest member of the Security council this month.
It's hard enough to take anything seriously from the UN, especially when they let the biggest violators of human rights have a seat on the Human Rights Commission. Why would I think that most third world banana republics would want anything less, than to screw the U.S. at every opportunity afforded them?
If you want to talk about internet censorship, if you want to talk about groups like CAIR trying to silence its critics, just let countries like North Korea, Iran and Syria have a say in this. Freedom of speech will suffer greatly, here and abroad.