窃听风暴袭击全球？

NGO“自由之家”的研究显示，全球范围内的言论表达自由正处于10年来的低点。缅甸、科特迪瓦和塞内加尔等国言论自由的扩展让人欣慰，而希腊、印度和巴西等民主程度不同的国家都出现了让人担忧的现象。谷歌顾问Kampfner指出，未来5年可能有多达50亿人进入网络时代，美国和欧盟应更好地以身作则捍卫网络自由。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

ebb [eb] v.衰退，退潮

out-and-out 里里外外的，彻底的

grim [grɪm] adj.冷酷的，糟糕的

thuggery ['θʌɡəri] n.谋财害命；暗杀

Myanmar 缅甸，原名为Burma

galvanise ['ɡælvənaiz] v.激励；通电；镀锌

dissent [dɪ'sent] n./v.异议

takedowns ['teɪkdaʊns] n.拆卸，这里指删帖

disparaging [dɪ'spærɪdʒɪŋ] v.adj.蔑视，蔑视的

impunity [ɪm'pjuːnɪtɪ] 免除处罚

come to a head 达到紧急关头

toy with 玩弄

shelved [felvd] v./adj.搁置

It is down to democracies to protect the most precious of freedoms (666 words)

By John Kampfner

Last Friday was World Press Freedom Day, the 20th annual celebration of this most essential of human rights. But you would be forgiven for wondering what there is to cheer about.

The previous day, Freedom House, an American non-governmental organisation, produced research suggesting global freedom of expression is at its lowest ebb for a decade. It charts the many countries whose record had deteriorated during 2012, from out-and-out dictatorships and more “modern” authoritarian regimes to self-proclaimed democracies.

Some of the worst performances, in countries such as Mali, were the result of political turmoil and civil war. Russia and China continued on their grim ways, armed with a combination of legislation, thuggery and increasing technical nous. State-dominated media hampered free elections from Venezuela to Ukraine. New laws prevent effective investigative journalism in South Africa. Ecuador is going downhill; Thailand, too. The list goes on.

There are several rays of hope. As it emerges from decades of military rule, Myanmar is relaxing curbs. In Africa, improvements were noted in Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia and Mauritania.

Economic crisis, instead of leading to more transparency, has galvanised the rich and powerful to censor. In Greece, a journalist was arrested for publishing information about senior public officials who had evaded tax by shipping their money into secret Swiss bank accounts. Kostas Vaxevanis was charged with violating privacy laws, acquitted, but on appeal by the state faces retrial next month.

Legitimate concerns over privacy, child protection and copyright are prompting governments to introduce laws for a different aim – to silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

Perhaps the most crucial countries to monitor in coming years are India and Brazil, which are seen as examples for others to follow. A series of laws in India has led to pretty much anything considered “disparaging” or “hurting religious sentiments”, or damaging the reputation of the country or its allies, being deemed an offence. Internet service providers are being required to respond to all “takedown” requests within 36 hours.

Brazil, too, has clamped down, particularly on internet freedom. According to Google’s latest twice-yearly Transparency Report, the authorities made more demands for online “takedowns” than any other country. Reporters are routinely harassed, sometimes killed. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which is looking at the issue of impunity, says the murders of nine Brazilian journalists are unsolved.

Worldwide, according to the CPJ, 70 journalists were killed in 2012 – among the highest totals in 20 years.

With citizens better connected than ever, such reports might seem surprising. More than 1bn people have access to the internet. At current growth rates, 5bn – 70 per cent of the world’s population – will be connected in five years’ time, mainly through their phones.

The more technology allows us to communicate the more governments are frightened. Indeed, many are appropriating it to track down dissenters.

If the worst abusers get their way, the more prescriptive approach to the internet could be enshrined in international governance. Last December, at the International Telecommunication Union – a previously obscure branch of the UN – 89 countries supported plans to give the body oversight of the web. Some 55 nations, including the US and most European countries, opposed the proposal. Matters are likely to come to a head at a further meeting in Geneva next week.

Democracies play a vital role in preventing the global takeover of the internet by governments – they must lead by example, which they often fail to do. The Obama administration’s record – notably with respect to its security legislation – has been poor.

In Britain, the government has toyed with plans to introduce a bill allowing public bodies access to all citizens’ electronic communications for a year. This has been shelved. But the damage such moves make is incalculable, giving the green light for authoritarian states to follow, smiling and shrugging their shoulders as they do.

The writer is external adviser to Google on free expression and advises the Global Network Initiative

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1.What does the writer imply by "But you would be forgiven for wondering what there is to cheer about"?

A. It's understandable that you do not know or forget about World Press Freedom Day.

B. We all know that worldwide press freedom is not satisfying.

C. The role of World Press Freedom Day has been overestimated.

D. All of above.

答案(1)

2.Which of the following is incorrect?

A. Mali's performance is poor because of political turmoil and civil war.

B. Venezuela and Ukraine's state-media hampered free elections.

C. Russia and China are banning anything considered “hurting religious sentiments”.

D. A Greek reporter was arrested for disclosing tax evasion of senior officials.

答案(2)

3.The writer opposed "government takeover of the internet" because he believes some governments are actually intended to...

A. ...better protect privacy, children and copyright.

B. ...silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

C. ...crack dowm rumors and purify the Internet environment.

D. ...gain control over this "lifeblood industry".

答案(3)

4.Why US and UK governments' legislation bills incur "incalculable" damage?

A. Because they give the green light for authoritarian states to follow.

B. Because they harm their own public images at home.

C. Because citizens' privacy could be violated.

D. Because they are against "global takeover of the internet by governments".

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：B.We all know that worldwide press freedom is not satisfying.

解释：文章第一句说，今年5月3日的新闻自由日是这个基本人权的第20次庆典。 但是你显然不知道有啥好庆祝的。接下来第二段就是介绍Freedom House的研究报告。

(2) 答案：C.Russia and China are banning anything considered “hurting religious sentiments”.

解释：做这事的是印度。ABD的说法都正确。

(3) 答案：B....silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

解释：作者认为A不过是有些政府控制言论的表面理由罢了。

(4) 答案：A.Because they give the green light for authoritarian states to follow.

解释：这是本文最后一句说的。英国政府不负责任地toyed with言论自由可能带来难以估计的负面影响，那就是给威权国家开绿灯，让它们可以明目张胆干涉言论自由，耸耸肩说“英美也这么搞啊为什么我不行”。