Last January 21st, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a strong speech, in favor of universal Internet freedom, in Washington, which has subsequently ruffled some feathers, mainly in China, which has the most Internet users of any country.

Internet freedom apparently is part of US Foreign Policy. President Obama recently created a new official post of Cyberspace Policy Coordinator.

In her speech, Secretary Hillary Clinton pointed out that the spread of information networks has formed a “new nervous system for our planet.” When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, we learn about it in real time. Information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people that at any moment in history.

Such free flow of information and access also has its downside. Terrorists use networks to enlist followers and to spew hatred and incite violence.

But the United States stands for a single Internet where all people have equal access to knowledge and ideas. Historically that commitment is traced to the First Amendment to the American Constitution.

Franklin Roosevelt used these ideas in his Four Freedoms speech in 1941, giving people the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, andfreedom from fear. Later, these ideals were adopted in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

She called the Internet “the new iconic infrastructure of our age.” Instead of division, it stands for connection. It can serve as a Great Equalizer, by providing all people with access to knowledge and potential markets. It can create opportunities where none exists. She cited the example of Kenya where farmers income has grown by 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology.

In Sub-Saharan Africa village, women use the Internet to gain access to micro credit loans and connect to global markets. Internet information has become a great leveler which helps lift people out of poverty.

Using the Internet, an unknown person can impact society. She gave as example a 13-year-old boy in India who organized blood drives after a terrorist attack in Mumbai. In Columbia, an unemployed engineer organized 12 million people to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. In Mexico, a single e-mail from a private citizen led to countrywide demonstrations against drug-related violence.

The US position is clearly opposed to any censorship and she applauded Google for announcing it may shut down its Chinese language search engine if Chinese officials insist on requiring Google to censor search results.

In addition to China, she also named Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Vietnam as examples of government censorship of the free flow of information.

China took offense at her statements, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry complained of “baseless accusations.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman posted on the ministry’s website that Secretary Clinton’s criticism was “harmful to Sino-American relations” and The Global Times complained that the US campaign for uncensored information was “a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy.”

In anticipation of China’s reaction, Secretary Clinton said that the United States and China have different views on this issue and “we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive friendship.”