Any buisness has the right to ban certain websites from entering its system. For example most companies block pornography sites or other sites that are distasteful especially in a professional environment. Some companies block extreme racist sites like the KKK , Reverend Wright’s Sermons or the Nazi party etc. But the United Nations block sites that some of its oppressive regimes would not want its citizens to see. Just imagine how much better things would be at the UN if they blocked sites such as:
UN Censors Internet In Its NY Headquarters, Blocking Media Critique and Non-Google Video Sites
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis UNITED NATIONS, April 10 — The UN’s computer system censors a number of websites, among them the Chinese anti-cnn.com site devoted to searching for what it calls media bias. Also censored is the site dailymotion.com, which after LiveLeaks.com took it down was a remaining site hosting the controversial film “Fitna,” which the UN’s Ban Ki-moon denounced. In each case, attempts from inside the UN, by staff or in the library, to read either site results in a message from the “ICT Security Unit” that “you have been redirected to this page because the site you are attempting to access is blocked according to the policy as detailed in ST/SGB/2004/15.” This Secretary-General’s Bulletin allows staff “limited personal use of ICT resources” unless these involve “pornography or engaging in gambling” or would “compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization.” But whether or not the UN Organization agrees with the media critique offered, for example, by anti-cnn.com, it is neither pornography or gambling, and keeping up with critiques of mainstream media could hardly “compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization.” The same is true of the video site DailyMotion.com, and it is worth noting that the UN does not block or censor another video site, YouTube.com. The latter, of course, is owned by the UN’s partner Google, which itself assists with Internet censorship in China.
Mr. Ban, UNDP’s Dervis, Google at left and Cisco, anti-cnn.com not shown (censored at UN)
[Full disclosure: Inner City Press was temporarily excluded by Google News earlier this year, which was linked to UN system and affiliates’ complaint(s). At the time, the UN sputtered that it does not engage in censorship. But why then are non-pornographic political analysis web sites blocked inside the UN’s own headquarters?] With the UN censoring the Internet inside its own headquarters in New York, its commitment to freedom of the press, particularly of online media, remains suspect. Watch this space.