America, and the Caribbean, except Cuba.
Although the United States has pushed for
greater intellectual property protections, negotiations have been stalled since 2005. 77
At the same time, the drive for enhanced IPR
regimes, often led by the United States, has been
controversial for a range of reasons, from lack of
public support to the nature of the civil law system in many countries. 78 For example, these
international “individualistic” and “exclusionary”
frameworks have been criticized as alien to many
of the unique cultures of the region, indigenous
rights, and traditions of collective rights.
Panama’s IP laws recognize indigenous folklore
and knowledge, and in 2000 it became the first
country in the world to conceive of a sui generis
IP system for the protection of indigenous crafts
and knowledge. 79
Other factors
In Latin America economic factors can have a
significant impact on citizens’ Internet access. In
Cuba a combination of Cuban government policy, the U.S. trade embargo, and personal economic limitations prevents the vast majority of
Cuban citizens from accessing the Internet.
Access is likely restricted even further by the U.S.
government’s sponsorship of reverse filtering,
which encourages Web sites to prevent access
from Cuba and other countries.
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez’s
announcement on January 8, 2007, of re-nationalization plans for the telecom CANTV 80 has
heightened fears of expanded regulation and
content restrictions as the government assumes
greater control of Internet media. A recent article
notes that CANTV has held 83 percent of the
Internet market since the market’s privatization, 81
so any changes in filtering through a nationalized
CANTV will have a strong impact on Internet
users.
Conclusion
Governments and especially courts in Latin
America are engaged in an adaptive process of
regulating online activity and content. Only Cuba
employs systematic technical filtering, with many
countries delegating the responsibility for filtering
content unsuitable for minors to ISPs. In addition,
a wide range of actors—including government
officials, telecom companies, individuals, and
judges—have attempted to induce or enforce filtering on a case-by-case basis, often with negotiated and shifting results. The ad hoc approaches that have been applied thus far suggest that
efforts to control Internet content in Latin America
are still unsettled and contested; this promises to
be an area of considerable change in the coming
years.
Authors: Jehae Kim, Patricio Rojas, Joanna Huey,
Kathleen Connors, Stephanie Wang
NOTES
1. Article 13, American Convention on Human Rights,
O.A.S.Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, entered
into force July 18, 1978, reprinted at http://www1.
umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas3con.htm.
2. Committee to Protect Journalists, Americas,
http://www.cpj.org/regions_06/americas_06/americas_06.html and http://www.cpj.org/regions_07/americas_07/americas_07.html; World Association of
Newspapers, “Media employees killed in 2006,”
http://www.wan-press.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique
=863; and World Association of Newspapers,
“Killing the messenger: Report of the global inquiry
by the International News Safety Institute into the
protection of journalists,” March 2007, http://www.
wan-press.org/IMG/pdf/REPORT_FINAL.pdf.
3. World Association of Newspapers, “Press freedom,
world review, November 2005–May 2006,” June 3,
2006, http://www.wan-press.org/print.php3?id_
article=12552.
4. See http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/americas05/
americas05.html.
5. Inter American Press Association, “IAPA conclusions
on Press Freedom in the Americas,” March 19,
2007, http://www.sipiapa.org/espanol/pressreleases/
chronologicaldetail.cfm?PressReleaseID=1869.
202
Regional Overviews
Although the United States has pushed for
greater intellectual property protections, negotiations have been stalled since 2005. 77
At the same time, the drive for enhanced IPR
regimes, often led by the United States, has been
controversial for a range of reasons, from lack of
public support to the nature of the civil law system in many countries. 78 For example, these
international “individualistic” and “exclusionary”
frameworks have been criticized as alien to many
of the unique cultures of the region, indigenous
rights, and traditions of collective rights.
Panama’s IP laws recognize indigenous folklore
and knowledge, and in 2000 it became the first
country in the world to conceive of a sui generis
IP system for the protection of indigenous crafts
and knowledge. 79
Other factors
In Latin America economic factors can have a
significant impact on citizens’ Internet access. In
Cuba a combination of Cuban government policy, the U.S. trade embargo, and personal economic limitations prevents the vast majority of
Cuban citizens from accessing the Internet.
Access is likely restricted even further by the U.S.
government’s sponsorship of reverse filtering,
which encourages Web sites to prevent access
from Cuba and other countries.
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez’s
announcement on January 8, 2007, of re-nationalization plans for the telecom CANTV 80 has
heightened fears of expanded regulation and
content restrictions as the government assumes
greater control of Internet media. A recent article
notes that CANTV has held 83 percent of the
Internet market since the market’s privatization, 81
so any changes in filtering through a nationalized
CANTV will have a strong impact on Internet
users.
Conclusion
Governments and especially courts in Latin
America are engaged in an adaptive process of
regulating online activity and content. Only Cuba
employs systematic technical filtering, with many
countries delegating the responsibility for filtering
content unsuitable for minors to ISPs. In addition,
a wide range of actors—including government
officials, telecom companies, individuals, and
judges—have attempted to induce or enforce filtering on a case-by-case basis, often with negotiated and shifting results. The ad hoc approaches that have been applied thus far suggest that
efforts to control Internet content in Latin America
are still unsettled and contested; this promises to
be an area of considerable change in the coming
years.
Authors: Jehae Kim, Patricio Rojas, Joanna Huey,
Kathleen Connors, Stephanie Wang
NOTES
1. Article 13, American Convention on Human Rights,
O.A.S.Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, entered
into force July 18, 1978, reprinted at http://www1.
umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas3con.htm.
2. Committee to Protect Journalists, Americas,
http://www.cpj.org/regions_06/americas_06/americas_06.html and http://www.cpj.org/regions_07/americas_07/americas_07.html; World Association of
Newspapers, “Media employees killed in 2006,”
http://www.wan-press.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique
=863; and World Association of Newspapers,
“Killing the messenger: Report of the global inquiry
by the International News Safety Institute into the
protection of journalists,” March 2007, http://www.
wan-press.org/IMG/pdf/REPORT_FINAL.pdf.
3. World Association of Newspapers, “Press freedom,
world review, November 2005–May 2006,” June 3,
2006, http://www.wan-press.org/print.php3?id_
article=12552.
4. See http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/americas05/
americas05.html.
5. Inter American Press Association, “IAPA conclusions
on Press Freedom in the Americas,” March 19,
2007, http://www.sipiapa.org/espanol/pressreleases/
chronologicaldetail.cfm?PressReleaseID=1869.
202
Regional Overviews