The internet has drastically altered the conduct of the more economically developed countries of the world in the last twenty years. A rather modern and unprecedented tool for social organisation, the internet has prompted western governments to reach new grounds in term of surveillance, citizenship, communication and democratic state control. The entirely new and ever-developing concept of the internet, and the place is holds in modern society, has become a center for ethical and political dilemmas; dilemmas fuelled primarily by the weaponization of the internet as a tool to fight authority, shown by the utilisation of the internet by ‘Hacktivist’ pressure groups such as Anonymous and Occupy, the historical leaking of classified surveillance information by computer professional Edward Snowden and, most recently, the utilisation of the internet as tool for the work of Islamic Extremists. It is obvious that the internet, if left unregulated, can become a very dangerous place for its users, and it is this fear that has prompted UK government, and primarily Home Secretary Theresa May, to begin a battle for more state control over the internet. For some, the idea of British state-control to promote the safety of individuals is undeniably correct, we are a nation that can pride ourselves on promoting the safety and contentment of our citizens; from Lloyd-George’s development of the welfare state to the quick and direct tackling of gun-laws after the tragic events of the Dunblane massacre. However, as for-mentioned, the uniqueness of the internet, as a contemporary world-wide tool for both positive and negative social organisation, has made the case for state-control a much more complex debate.

The argument for the restriction of state control of the internet is consistently cogent. The ideological concepts of Classical Liberalism do clearly support this argument, such as the idea of Laissez Faire; The idea that the citizens should be left to their own devices as much as possible, and should have the utmost self-control over their own choices and life, which includes the choices they make over their connection to the internet, what they view and their personal details relation to a free internet. The concept of laissez faire would argue it is not the government’s place nor is it necessary for the government to enforce control over the public access to the global internet, as the citizens should have the ability and competence to make the correct choices for themselves on the internet and associations with it.

Moreover, another major characteristic of Classical Liberalism is the concept of Negative Freedom. Negative freedom describes the idea that the citizens should be entirely free of any force or control, be it in terms of physical, organisational or national control. With regards to this, evolves the idea that the citizens should have the freedom to make their own choices in terms of internet access and therefore state-control of the internet limits the freedom of individuals and so should not be encouraged, as holds elements of tyrannical and dictatorial leadership.
The idea of social contract as developed by major liberal philosopher John Locke in his book, ‘Two Treaties of Government’, has major influences on this debate. Locke asserted the point that a legitimate government can only obtain its legitimacy from the consent of those it governs, the citizens must voluntary surrender some of their freedom to the government, as the “general will” of the majority that said government will make the fore-most decisions for the society.

Moreover, Locke identified that the citizens have a right to remove consent to the government that are not benefiting them; It may be argued, that the citizens have a right to remove consent to the government for issues regarding internet control, as the government of the UK is not yet fully aware and educated on control of the internet to properly implement such legislation. The incompetence of the government on this issue is visible through Germany’s confrontation to the UK in June 2013, as Germany questioned the legality of the UK’s mass tapping of calls and internet, warning that free and democratic societies could not flourish when states shielded actions in a ‘veil of secrecy’. It could be argued that as of this time, the UK is not yet matured enough to develop surveillance and control of the internet without infringing upon the human rights which we are subject to as of the Human Rights Act of 1998, and therefore the citizens should have the ability to withdraw their consent to being governed in regards to this global matter. As well as this, the open letter of May 2013 to Home Secretary Theresa May signed by several of the largest internet companies including Facebook and Google indicated that May’s plans to track email, internet and social media use of British citizens would be ‘expensive to implement and highly contentious’. The fact that these major internet giants, whom have the most accomplished grasp of the internet and its powers, are too clearly expressing the government’s incompetence to tackle such matters further legitimises this point.

Furthermore, Locke identifies an atomistic account of society, in which each individual shares in the faculty of reason and the ‘self-evident laws of nature’ to pursue the best decisions for themselves. Taking this into account, we can assume that the citizens of the UK are competent enough as ‘morally, intellectually, self-sufficient units’ to take control of their own internet access and how they wish to interface with the global sphere of the web. State control of the internet is unnecessary, as individuals possess the capability to make the correct decisions regarding the internet for themselves.

Similarly, Locke’s explanations on private property are further evidence to support the restriction of state-control of the internet, if the state does not wish to legitimise revolution. Locke identifies private property not only as an exclusive right to each person’s own body, but also the things we produce which may be appropratied as an extension of our own personal property; since the movements and ideas are our own, when these are used to improve the world around us, the resulting products belong to the person also. This definition can be used to legitimise social media activitiy, internet logs and emails as private property to each respected individual. Locke goes on to identify that government interferrence with the private property of its citizens is just cause for those citizens to withdraw their consent to be governed, and would legitimise an uprising and consequential revolution of government. Using Locke’s writings, it could be presumed that the state-control of the internet is infact an example of tyrannical leadership, which must be met with rebellion. However, it must be taken in to account th context of Locke’s writings, which were written at the time of the Glorious Revolution, as explanations to justify the revolution against the monarchy and its’ interference against the British people.

Another influencial classical liberal was Thomas Paine, who recognised that a codified constitution should always be present in any terms of government and that sovereigntly should always lie with the people. Using this concept, it is plausable that restriction of state control of the internet is necerssary as long as no codified consitution regarding such matters exists to legitimize the state interference. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, in October 2014, backed the idea of an ‘internet consitution’ to enshrine the rights of the people and the ability of the government in controlling the internet. Thus further legitimising the idea that a codified set of regulations is necerssary before the Government implements control over internet use in the UK. However, there is also a very present case for no restriction on the state control of the internet. It can be argued that Locke’s ideas of civic society with in his Social Contract do infact argue for the government’s control of the internet in the UK and survelliance of its use. Locke perscribes that people voluntarily choose to live in a society, and when they make this choice they enter in to a formative agreement to submit themselves and their property to governance, meaning they have legitimised the authority of the government in terms of their property and own rights by making the concious decison that the government will make the best decisions. This expresses that the government is completely legitimised in the decisions it makes regarding state-control of the government. Despite this, the argument may be undermined given the current political context of the UK and the fact that the government has a minority-mandate; which may lead some to believe that the governemnt does not have legitimacy, as a majority of will has not consented to the governance.

As well as this, the classical liberal Thomas Hobbes outline of Social control may also be supportive of government control of the internet, by identifying that the self-internet of human beings to avoid the confrontations of the state of nature prompt the creation of a soveriegn state, which is a ‘collective power’ to give ‘common benefit’. Using the maxim of ‘common benefit’, it is easy to legitimise the actions of the state in controlling UK internet access and surveilliance of british citizens to help prevent the internet becoming harmful to british citizens, be it through the use of the internet by extremist organisations to brainwash, recruit and organisize terrorist activity or through the easy access to pornographic material which the internet provides, which is quickly becoming a major detromnetal factor in creating distorted, harmful ideas of sexuality and consent for teenagers in the UK.

In the same manner, there is several characterististics of New, or Social, Liberalism which could be used to support non-resitricted state control of the internet. Social Liberalism developed in the late 19th century as the industrial revolution prompted the ideas that it wasn’t enough to leave society unregulted, and that through necerssary state intervention, social individualism is harnessed for a better society. Social Liberalism promotes a proactive role of the state in accomplishing positive freedom - the idea that it is not enough to leave the individual free from force, they must also be given the correct social circumstances to allow the individual to flourish, and furfill thier potential. This idea is reflected in the work of Beveridge and Lloyd George at the beginning of the 20th century, and is relevant in pointing out how state control of the internet may be a ‘necerssary evil’ in protecting the postive freedom of the citizens of the UK. In Novermber 2014, the GCHQ Chief Robert Hannigan accused the US Tech Giants such as Facebook and Google, as becoming the ‘networks of choice’ for terrorist organisations such as ISIS. It may be true that the lack of internet regulation in terms of government survelliance has given terrorists the opportunity to harness the internet to organise their behaviour and brainwash the British people - thus infringing on the safety and postive freedom of such individuals. Also, on the 5th of November 2014, it has been discovered that Islamic extremists used false copyright claims, in line with the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, to obtain the personal details of a group of critics that run an anti-islam channel on the Video-broadcasting platform Youtube. Under YouTube’s implementation of the DMCA, the reported material was taken down proactively, without proof required that it infringed upon the complainant’s intellectual property. By submitting a counter-notification, the originally anonymous citics were forced to share their personal details with the extremists, and have reportedly now recieved several death threats. This is further proof that the lack of regulation of the internet in regards to governemnt survelliance and intelligence activitiy is leading to vulnerability and danger for the British people that wish to use the internet. Hannigan, claiming that ‘privacy has never been an absolute right’, said that the GCHQ needs support from the big internet companies to properly protect people, and prevent the abuse of loopholes within internet legilsation again.

Furthermore, the writings of social liberal Thomas HIll Green can also be utilised to support government control of the internet. Green established that before society, there were no human rights, and the basis of human rights is the common good for the society, he argued that humans are natually kind and sympthatic creatures that have an innate sense of altruism. This concept of human rights as only useful for the common good supports unrestricted state-control of the internet as the sole intention of this control is to protect the people of the UK and prevent the use of the internet as a harmful tool. In addition, the idea of human-beings as innately altruistic and sympathatic would suggest that most UK citizens would support the unrestricted government control of the internet, as it would help to protect and could possibly save a life of another citizen.

In short, the undeniable unsophistifaction and lack of experience which the British government has due to the still recent and ever-developing image of the internet is significant proof that state control of the internet must be restricted until we become a more competant and educated state on such matters and as the sphere of the world wide web becomes fully formed and more predictable in terms of social media and social organisation tools. It is impossible to expect our government to impose legislation on the use of internet in the United Kingdom when, as a nation, we do not have the intelligence to understand what may next emerge in terms of hacking and internet use. It may be argued that, by pushing for legislation on internet control i.e the snooper’s charter, infact highlights our nation to protential threats, when infact the intelligence of the UK should focus on developing a fully functioning grasp of the web and its tools, with the help of internet tech giants. The development of neo-liberalism and the influences of classical liberal ideas within the writings of Nozick and Spooner stress fundementally that property rights should always be upheld. It is undeniable that, based on Locke’s definition of private property, that emails, social networks and other internet use of individuals is infact their private property and should be tackled this way, with regard to their personal freedom and identity as individuals. Both Classical and Social Liberalism stress the imporance of the individual, all be it in different ways, yet how can it be expected that an individual may flourish if their freedom and privacy is being polluted by the government which purpose is to infact protect it. The development of social media with in the internet empowers individuals not only through self-education, research and the ability to discover global issues outside of their usual sphere of knowledge, but also through the opportunity it allows individuals to unite with others like themselves and harness their true identity in order to flourish, such as within the LBGT community. Moreover, the imposition of state-control on the internet, such as Cameron’s plans to impose property to property blocks on pornoprahic material based on individual preference, is frightfully close to infringing on the human rights in correlatjon to the Human Rights Act of 1998, Article 8; Right to respect for private and family life. The idea of unrestricted state control of the internet is infact a major tool in the attempts of tyrannical and dictatorial leaderships to crush rebellion and revolution; as was present during the Arab spring, in which lack of internet freedom was a cause of the uprisings and full internet blocks, a tactic employed by the respective governments of Egypt, Libya and Syria in an attempet to quell protests. Even now, with the October 2014 Hong Kong riots, government is using unrestricted internet control to try and silence those protesting for democracy. Not only does it seem asymterical but for the United Kingdom, which prides itself on democracy, to reflect the actions of countries which are surpressing their citizens is almost laughable.