The Sri Lankan government’s decision to block access to the controversial website Tamilnet risks placing the country on par with repressive regimes in other parts of the Asia/Pacific region, according to a prominent academic and free speech campaigner.

“There are a number of countries around the world that successfully attempt to control the Internet. Countries like Burma, like Vietnam, like China,” said Toby Mendel, a director with Article 19, a UK-based organization that promotes freedom of expression around the world. “It’s a pretty extreme measure. It’s a small group of undemocratic, non-human rights respecting countries that go as far as trying to censor the Internet. It’s not a group of countries that Sri Lanka wants to be put together with.”

China employs an estimated 30,000 cyber snoops in its internet police task force, charged with censoring and monitoring information that is critical of the communist regime. Mendel says the Sri Lankan government’s attempt at censorship is no less distressing than China’s, even though it has taken on a less sophisticated form.

Despite the relative ease of circumventing the ban (links to a couple of websites), Mendel believes that the government’s move will have a chilling effect on speech. “It’s a threatening move and it will stop some people from seeing the site,” he said.

While the editors of Tamilnet claim to be independent, critics argue that the site provides a sympathetic voice for the LTTE.

Mendel says that the rightness or wrongness of the information available on Tamilnet is irrelevant. “International law is quite clear: false statements are protected by the guaranteed freedom of expression. It’s not for the state to determine what’s right and what’s wrong,” he said. “The mainstream reporting, especially related to the conflict, is very much controlled. In that context, alternative sources of media are very important.”

Sri Lanka’s Internet Service Providers blocked access to Tamilnet in June, reportedly through orders from the government. The government has ridiculed this suggestion, though in an interview to the BBC’s Sinhala Service, government spokesperson Keheliya Rambukwella admitted that “We are looking for hackers to disable the Tamilnet but could not find anyone yet.”

The ban provoked outrage on Sri Lanka’s blogosphere, even among those critical of the content on Tamilnet. Lanka Libertarian wrote that “Tamilnet is without doubt a LTTE terrorist propaganda website. However banning accessibility to it is unacceptable. It is also stupid. It amounts to what I consider censorship and should be resisted.”

While the ban creates a bleak picture of free speech in the country, Mendel believes that events abroad can give Sri Lankans reason for hope. Since 1990, with the fall of the Eastern Bloc, there has been a rising respect for free speech, he said. Most recently, Jordan passed a freedom of information law that, though flawed, is a step in the right direction.

However, with Tamilnet still blocked as of July and with no signs of it’s return, freedom of expression in Sri Lanka remains eclipsed by a need to suppress alternate forms of information.