Freedom of speech is the most fundamental platform that America defines itself by. Although most evidently rooted in the overarching term 'freedom,' free speech is largely based on the historical importance of communication. The ability to communicate is central to developing relationships, to forming communities, to learning, understanding, and finding solutions. Communication is the basis of rhetoric, justice and essentially, our entire system of democracy. Free speech represents our freedom as a nation, and stands as the most distinguishing policy our country has. From it, stems our free press, our freedom of religion, our right to peacefully assemble and to oppose the government. As Americans we hold this right unconditionally as part of our Constitutional ideals. Any effort to censor or otherwise restrict this freedom is a threat to our basic rights as humans.

In light of efforts to restrict communication, the crisis in Yugoslavia presents us with an interesting situation: it illustrates the profound ability of a dictator to close all of a country's lines of communication, yet at the same time represents the profound power of the Internet to defy those interests. President Slobodon Milosevic recently shut down all independent media in Yugoslavia causing thousands of Serbs to flood to the Internet, the only medium in history invincible to regulation. This occurrence is analogous to when, in December 1996, Milosivec demanded authorities shut down Serbia’s independent radio station, B92. The station countered by sending its programs over the Internet to broadcasters outside Serbia, who then rebroadcasted them back into the country. In a like manner, Serbs today counter Milosevic by turning to Internet newsgroups, Web pages, mailing lists, bulletin boards and chat rooms to communicate. As Simson Garfinkel from the Boston Globe put it, this “clearly demonstrates the power of the Internet to overcome political oppression—especially censorship by dictatorships” (Garfinkel 1).

During this period of sheer war and tight governmental control in Yugoslavia, the Internet has provided a place of communication-refuge for the Serbian community. In many ways, it serves as their only outlet to communicating with the world. Since the war began, Serbs have created WebPages devoted to the crisis, they have developed form letters appealing to the international community and they participate in online newsgroups to promote their side of the story. One newsgroup in particular, soc.culture.yugoslavia, has served as an active avenue to vent their rage. Because the newsgroup usually creates heated debates, it has allowed Serbs to form a sense of community—siding together against the NATO supporters. Perhaps most cohesive in the formation of their community, however, is the fact that together they have all subverted Milosevic's effort to restrict the media by fleeing to the Internet. The significance of this medium, as is especially apparent in this situation, is its unregulated nature. The difficulty in regulating the Internet is probably its most notable attribute because it undermines attempts to regulate free speech.

For example, in the debate over the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the motion to censor the Internet was a central one. Proponents wanted to regulate so as to clean the Internet up and make it safe for everyone including children. But, opponents envisioned scenarios, such as this Serbian situation, where any blockage of information could be devastating. There is a compelling interest to protect children of obscene language and indecent material, but you run the risk of reducing the Internet to only what is appropriate for children. The content on Yugoslav Web pages and newsgroup postings is very graphic. It depicts blood and war and is notorious for being profane. Harris Breslow mentioned in “Civil Society, Political Economy and the Internet,” that the Internet should serve as a “political space, one where the free electronic exchange of ideas allows for the improvement of the human condition” (Breslow 237). In the present situation with the unification of Serbs online, this is precisely the function the Internet attends to. Serbs are able to solidify their worldwide community, and further their political interests due to the sole reason that the Internet is invulnerable to regulation.

Although the Serbian community is very much a global entity, this wasn't entirely apparent until the outbreak of the war caused their president to tightly censor the country’s news outlets. Closing down all Serbian independent media was perhaps the most extreme, un-western move Milosevic has made. However, on the same note it is also perhaps the most influential factor in the Serbian unification online. The coming together of Serbs follows a common principle unique to all mankind: It is during the most distressed and poverished times that a sense of community is at its height. People come together during times of common hardship. They converge as minorities, as different or as collective pursuers of a mutual cause. But most essentially, people converge because they inherently have a need to be a part of a group. Jan Fernback, in his article about online communities says that “our need for human association and sense of belonging is so strong that we will seek to build communities of interest in cyberspace because we might not be able to build them elsewhere” (Fernback 40). Currently, as is increasingly apparent, not being able to build a unified community is the unfortunate situation within Yugoslavia. It is not surprising, then, that we see Serbs turn to cyberspace to satisfy a prominent inherent need—a touch of human association.

But is there really a ‘touch of human association’ in cyberspace? The anonymous and virtual nature of Internet association begs the question of whether this new online Serbian group can be properly termed a community. For example, the Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines community as “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage” (Watson 103). While this definition excludes the notion of virtual communities, Steve Jones at the University of Tulsa has introduced the idea that there is “a new type of community” that can be defined as being "a variable of social relations...a complex of ideas and sentiments" (Jones). Similarly, McLaughlin, Osborne, and Ellison in the article, “Virtual Community in a Telepresence Environment” call them “pseudocommunities, networks not of primary interpersonal relationships but rather impersonal associations integrated via a mass medium” (McLaughlin 146). These conceptions of community are more appropriate when recognizing cyber-groups as communities. In fact, the recent cyber-convergence of Serbs is not unlike other Internet groups who have been termed a ‘community.’

In the case of soc.culture.yugoslavia, where Serbs assemble online to support a genocidal regime at odds with the rest of the civilized world, we can draw a strikingly similar analogy to Nazis and the online unification of their unpopular community. Susan Zickmund, in her article about online subversives, wrote that "individuals propagating Nazi ideologies have traditionally operated in isolation, with limited ties to organizational structures" (Zickmund 185). Like the Nazis who supported Hitler, Serbs are forced into isolation because they support Milosevic, an almost equally tyrannical figure. Ironically though, by taking away their most notable means of communication, it was the Serbs own leader who forced them into isolation—not the rest of the world. Milosevic allows no private radio stations, no private television and no private newspapers. However, Zickmund raises an interesting point about the Internet that is applicable to Serbian situation as well as Nazis: "with the emergence of electronic mail and the World Wide Web, subversives are now discovering the means of propagating their message beyond the narrow confines of pre-established alliances" (185). Despite Milosevic, Serbs have turned to a medium that transcends all other modes of transmission. They use the Internet to sidestep their president's rampant propaganda, in effect, creating a sense of community that fosters a rhetoric of shared ideologies and common grievances.

While the Internet-mediated interaction among Serbs has undeniably united them, there is yet another way that the Serbian community has solidified online: the presence of antagonists. Susan Zickmund, continuing her discussion of subversives, has noticed that in online Nazi forums, outsiders are ever present. "As members discover more efficient ways to reach new recruits, non-racist individuals can, concomitantly, contact the radicals" (199). In fact, communicating with the radicals often has the effect of adding value by motivating the participants into debates. Zickmund says that "while the antagonists aren’t part of the subversive community, their responses may serve an important function" (203). By highlighting certain touchy subjects or responding to particular claims, antagonists actually serve as a prominent component of newsgroups. In the Usenet group, soc.culture.yugoslavia, the antagonists are usually Americans or British people who argue in favor of NATO military action in Yugoslavia. The following example illustrates how the American antagonist clearly plays a key role in triggering a debate.

American: “In this decade alone, we have already seen Serbian atrocities kill a quarter of a million people in Bosnia.”

Serb: "You haven't got a clue about he history of the region and who the real perpetrators are. You are SHEEPLE. Bet you voted for Klinton--twice--didn't you, candyass."

American: "Do you really need the death toll to reach a quarter million before we act this time?"

Serb: "You haven't got a clue about the truth, the facts or the numbers. You CNN Boy, are the UNINFORMED.

American: "The Serbs use the same bigoted nationalistic philosophy the Nazis used in 1937."

Serb: "Fuck you. You know absolutely NOTHING about WW2, the Nazis, or Ethnic Nationalism. There is no basis for Nationhood outside BLOOD. Blood is thicker than either water OR paper" (Appendix A).

As we can see, the antagonist's presence in online discussions definitely generates a dialogue. There is, however, another effect his presence has as well. The antagonist also serves as a way for the Serbian community to support their own peers and back each other up. As many of the responses to antagonist's posts come from various different Serbs, we can denote a strengthening of the internal cohesiveness. They, in their powerless predicament to halt the air strikes, can finally counter-attack the Americans with a pseudo-army of online attackers. Apparently, they use the forum to viscously assault President Clinton, to demonize Madeline Albright, and to cybertorture Tony Blaire. They like to make threats, to demean the American system and people, and to insult anyone with a favor toward the attacks. Most noteworthy, though, is that they do it together. Thus, the importance of these antagonist lurkers proves instrumental to both the creating heated discussions, as well as reinforcing the wary alliance of a distraught Serbian minority.

While much of the Serbian online discourse revolves around verbally attacking NATO allies, they do in fact have sound, concrete interests they collectively pursue. Categorizing those interests is often hard to put a finger on though. Sometimes they write in Serbian tongue, secretly converging on issues. Frequently, in broken English, there are formal appeals to bring to rest the senseless bombing. Then they pray to God and appeal to humanity with first-hand, graphic portrayals of their backyard battlefield. Other times, there are American Serbs who support the attack, bringing to light how broken the Serbian community really is. In perspective though, what we see in this online newsgroup is a picture of a community that is truly disenfranchised and excommunicated from the world by its own government. We see the coming together of a group of people motivated by a shared sense of urgency to stimulate political change. Moreover, we see Serbian outrage directed toward their own government as well as the foreign attack on their sovereign country. Online Serbian interests, then, are twofold: There is a compelling effort to induce political change (i.e. STOP NATO!), and there is a strong interest to express serious disdain about the situation.
In an effort to convince the political world to halt the bombings, the community often uses a common tactic of persuasion, appeals to emotion. In the midst of the chaotic situation in Kosovo, many atrocities have been the work of the supposed peacekeepers. In one instance a cemetery was hit twice, provoking a stir about NATO intentions that reverberated across the planet. To rally that stir, Reverend Sava Jajic at the Dacani Orthodox monastery in Kosovo, woke early before dawn one morning (when the waning Internet connection was best) to deliver a long public statement about the crisis. Appealing to the international fellowship of Christians, Jajic wrote that “destroying of places of worship and other cultural heritage is absolutely unacceptable for the modern Europe and deserves the outright condemnation” (Asiaweek). By exposing atrocious contradictions in the NATO purpose, Jajic essentially wished to motivate a political movement.

In a like manner, others relay depictions of violence attribute the atrocities to the Serbian government. They too opt for political change through the Internet, but explain the situation quite differently. The politicians at fault are not those of NATO, but rather those within their own government. A woman from Gjakova described the scene in her town, adding a new dimension to Serbian concerns:

“There are many executions going on. I didn’t manage to make my family flee, so I am very concerned about their safety. You remember the doctor? He was executed last night. All old part of Gjakova burnt down. Several families are executed…Barjram Kelmendi with his two sons is executed.” (Whitworth)

Credible accounts of raw execution based on ethnic differences are bound to provoke a reaction. After all, voices such as these aren’t unlike the ones that brought NATO to the region in the first place. It goes to show that in the interest of finding political solutions during a war, relaying first-hand reports to the outside world is quite influential in effectuating a response.

 
The next examples turn the table back around, blaming NATO for the instability and suffering of the Serbian people. A man within war-torn Serbia writes “I am sitting in the dark because its an air raid. Maybe a Tomahawk will hit us.” (Whitworth). How frightful for Americans to imagine air raids again! For many reading this passage, the man’s experience brings back memories of WWII air raid drills: the echo of the siren in the background, turning off all of a city’s lights, scurrying home to be in the same shelter as family. The air raid experience this man is relaying resonates with many across the world that have themselves experienced the fright of war. Therefore, because this type of posting hits such a sensitive nerve, we can sense that it will have the effect of motivating people politically.

While forcing people to relive their own war time memories is influential, another tactic used to provoke political change is the intellectual plea. As we saw in the Vietnam years, college students can have a resounding effect on political democracy. Organizing widespread protests, marches and other demonstrations often lead to policy change. In the following letter, the Belgrade Academic Association for Equal Rights in the World encourages youths of the globe to identify with Serbs of their same generation. They appeal to peace and love and, while left unsaid, they want youths across the globe to revolt against the air strikes.

“Dear colleges, At this moment, while we write this letter, they are bombing us and we are hiding in the basements, watching our dead and wounded friends. They demolished our schools and hospitals…Young people in Serbia don’t want war and blood, but peace and life together with all people in the world” (Appendix B)
While the letter doesn’t specifically call for university protests, the themes they use parallel the thematic staple during 1960’s protests. Vietnam War demonstrations always called for ‘peace’ and ‘life together’ with all people of the world. Since they were relatively effective in abating further military action, it is not surprising that the academians in Belgrade employ this option.

The interest to stop NATO predominantly outweighs all other interests coming out of the Serbian community, but it certainly doesn’t exist in isolation. The interests of many Serbs online lie in verbally attacking NATO supporters. What end this accomplishes is beyond logical coherence, but its presence on soc.culture.yugoslavia is unquestionably rampant. On April 14, 1999, one voice screamed: “Bill Clinton, you are a War Criminal!!” (Appendix D). Another, on the same day proclaimed: “Fascist mass murderers: British, Spanish, Portuguese colonists. True Americans: Sioux, Apaches, Incas…” (Appendix D). Aside from simply propagating Serb’s sheer hate for Americans, it is difficult to understand what they really seek to accomplish from this negativity. Casting hate on another culture is circular; all one can expect is more pessimism in retort.

However, while it seems that insulting America and its people does nothing but provoke a negative response, it is not always ineffective. For instance, one Serb said that “NATO’s propaganda is the biggest one world has ever seen” (Appendix D). There is a lesson to be learned here. Just as pro-NATO groups advocate Serbian problems to hopefully get Serbs to think about their tyrannical government, this type of posting causes us to reevaluate our own system: Does NATO really practice propaganda? Are we getting the whole picture in the Balkans? Or are we ourselves victims of the same governmental control we deem Serbia to have? Therefore, in the midst of the negative war waged online, there is some significance to be realized. The perceptions Serbs have of America and NATO are often valid.

Serbs view our ‘freedom of speech’ policy as a complete myth. They claim that since the American government filters news storys during a war situation, they are engaging in propaganda—a practice that directly contradicts our free press ideal. Regardless of any government policy though, the Internet stands alone as a borderless gloabal entity, invincible to regulation and admissible to anyone with a means to connect. For minority and other marginalized groups, the Internet organizes communities who opt for political and economic change. They form Websites, write form letters and join chat rooms. Within online newsgroups, such as soc.culture.yugoslavia, members can voice their opinions, further their interests and join forces. Serbs have had the opportunity to express their greivances and advocate political change. Therefore, by employing the Internet to subvert Milosevic’s censorship, Serbs and the antagonists alike have helped extend the Internet, beyond the walls of an internationally recognized medium, to a function as an instrument of solidifying disenfranchised and excommunicated groups and furthering their political interests.