Reading the text of Hillary Clinton's speech on internet freedom, I coudn't help thinking back to the speech George Bush made in 2003, announcing his "forward strategy of freedom" in the Middle East. Each in its own way encapsulated some of the core philosophy of the two administrations. 

Both speeches also contained the Cold War references that seem to be obligatory for American politicians whenever they talk about freedom. I do wish they would move on from that; it doesn't help. As Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the picture of authoritarian regimes in Clinton's speech was anachronistic and "smacked of a memo written by a bunch of confused Kremlinologists".

Clinton, however (unlike Bush) didn't shy away from criticising America's allies. Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all got a dishonourable mention, and she deserves credit for that.

Bush's 2003 speech basically equated freedom with democracy (he often used the two words inter-changeably) – which in practice set free elections as the yardstick by which progress was to be measured.

Clinton's speech interpreted freedom much more widely – which in my opinion is the better approach. Marc Lynch is right when he says: "Supporting universal principles of freedom of speech and assembly ('the freedom to connect') is more realistic, more empowering, and ultimately a better approach than high-blown rhetoric about 'democracy' without any accompanying ability to deliver."

Although a large part of the background to Clinton's speech was the ongoing dispute between Google and China, it's worth considering its implications for the Middle East where all but a handful of Arab countries routinely censor the internet, some of them more than others.

The first point to note is that they are doing the censoring  with American help. Look, for instance, at this cheery report from the New York Times in 2001 about American IT companies vying for the "terrific" opportunity to deprive Saudi citizens of their right to information.

I also fear that Clinton's speech, despite its many qualities, will not cut much ice with Arab regimes since they justify internet censorship primarily on the grounds of upholding "morality" and preventing "cyber-crimes" (while also slipping in political and other forms of censorship as if it were an after-thought).

We saw this recently with Algeria, where the case for their 
newly-installed filtering system was presented in terms of "public order and morality". It wasn't long, of course, before the first political opposition website was blocked.

It's a similar story in Saudi Arabia, where most of the blocking is for "moral" reasons (pornography, etc) but some political and religious censorship is also included, along with fairly strenuous efforts to stop people circumventing the censorship via proxy servers.

Clinton acknowledged in her speech that "all societies recognise that free expression has its limits" – mentioning incitement to violence and hate speech as examples. To this, Arab regimes will no doubt reply: "Yes, and in our societies we include pornography and defamation of religion in that, too."

There are two separate issues here. First, if we accept a need for some limits on free expression (hopefully minimal ones), restricting internet access is the wrong way to enforce it. Filtering is a blunt instrument: it penalises innocent websites unfairly (because it's automated), it inconveniences internet users and, with a little know-how, it's easy to circumvent. The sensible way to combat incitement to violence, hate speech, etc, is to deal directly with those who propagate it.

The second issue is a much broader one, and relates to Arab notions about the relationship between governments and their peoples. I've discussed this at length in my book, What's Really Wrong with the Middle East, but essentially it's conceived as a parent-child or a shepherd-sheep relationship – the idea that the public (in their role as children or sheep) must be shielded from harm, including "harmful" thoughts.

This has repercussions way beyond questions of the internet and censorship, and its main effect is to discourage people from developing into active, engaged, independent-minded citizens. 
In her speech, Clinton referred to the 30 activists and bloggers who were detained by the authorities in Egypt last week. But the fact that some of them were bloggers was largely incidental: they were arrested while trying to offer condolences over an attack on Christians in Upper Egypt. 

In the free society, that ought to be regarded as a normal, public-spirited act of citizenship. In Egypt, apparently, it's a threat to public order verging on criminality.