Do-It-Yourself Censorship.(International Edition)(self-censorship )

Byline: Evgeny Morozov

U.S. firms, spooked by export rules, seem to be practicing a kind of self-censorship oddly similar to what Chinese firms do.

Yaraslau Kryvoi was no stranger to censorship. After all, he grew up in Belarus, one of the last "outposts of tyranny" in Europe, as former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice once put it. On Feb. 20, he got a notice from his Web-hosting firm that his account was being suspended and that he had 10 days to remove his content. Like many citizens of authoritarian states, Kryvoi had found himself on a blacklist.

Trouble is, this story takes place in Washington, D.C. Kryvoi, a 29-year-old graduate of Harvard Law School, works at a reputable law firm. In his spare time, he administers a blog for the local chapter of the Belarussian American Association (BAA). Since the government of Belarus is subject to U.S. trade sanctions, Bluehost, the Provo, Utah, company that hosts Kryvoi's Web site, decided to cut him off.

Westerners are quick to condemn the deterioration of Internet freedoms in Asia and the Middle East. But some U.S.-based Internet firms, spooked by export rules, seem to be committing similar sins. They practice a kind of self-censorship that bears a striking resemblance to the way Chinese Web-hosting firms censor customers for fear of incurring the wrath of Beijing. The situation is not helping the United States win friends and promote democracy abroad.

At first glance, the U.S. rules don't seem all that onerous. The United States imposes two forms of economic and trade sanctions on rogue states. The Commerce Department has a blanket ban on a handful of states designed to keep sensitive technology, like encryption, from falling into the wrong hands. Since most Internet services provide encryption as a standard tool for secure communications, the rules would apply to Web hosting. The Treasury Department also keeps a broader list of states subject to trade restrictions, but it is not a blanket ban--rather, it targets "specially designated individuals," according to its Web site. The purpose of a specific list, of course, is to avoid implicating entire populations in what amounts to geopolitical squabbling.

In practice, some firms are not so selective. For instance, it would be difficult to mistake BAA's Washington blog for an authoritarian mouthpiece. BAA is one of the oldest and most visible U.S.-based groups pushing for democracy in Belarus. Kryvoi, as part of BAA delegations, has briefed officials at the State Department. When Kryvoi contacted Bluehost to suggest it had made a mistake, he says a customer-service representative told him that, after consultation with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a ...