The Internet can be described as the greatest and worst invention ever. Regardless of which it is, one thing is certain: it has become such an intrinsic component for our way of life, that we could not imagine “regressing” back to a lifestyle without it. That being said, the Internet as we know it may well disappear within the next decade.

As media outlets have been reporting, the US government has fully handed over control of the internet to the global community. In relinquishing control ICANN, the group that moderates and curates internet domains, the United States (whether through deliberate actions or sheer idiocy) has essentially handed over control to the United Nations .

However, several attorney generals from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada started a legal crusade in the hopes of reversing such a mistake. Sadly, their plaintiff was denied by U.S. District Court Judge George Hanks. Given the decision, the attorney generals expressed their concerns on this ruling, pointing out two major issues which they see with such an action. Breitbart News reports:

Texas Attorney General spokesman Marc Rylander said, “We’re disappointed with the ruling. It’s a dire day in our country when the President is allowed to unilaterally give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.  We will continue to weigh our options as the suit moves forward.”

The federal lawsuit argued that the Internet hand-over “violates the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution by giving away government property without congressional authorization.”

But the fact that Obama is overstepping his presidential boundaries is the least of the concerns presented in their compelling argument. The weight of their argument focuses on the issue that international control over the internet with adversely affect freedom of speech.

… Obama’s move to hand-over control of Internet domains would give interests in China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea an ability to have authoritarian control over online speech. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are said to be at risk. The Chinese government banned online news reporting and bloggers who criticize the government can be charged with a crime; even posts on social media are limited. It was reported that Russia and China are said to be working together towards the goal of more censorship of the Internet. Turkey has an outright ban on social media and it is a crime to insult the president. Public flogging and jail sentences are used in Saudi Arabia to punish those who offend the government. The article also reports that Turkey is often seen as the world leader in blocking Twitter accounts and Saudi Arabia has about 400,000 websites blocked. North Korea’s “Internet” is essentially only for government propaganda and surveillance.

Thus, the Internet, which has been advertised for so long as the leading forum in freedom of speech, has now been handed over to other countries known for their hostile approach to free speech, without any regard for the will of the people, both American and worldwide. All of these countries are known for online censorship of any media whose ideological basis is not aligned with the doctrines of said regime. Already in this process, the freedoms of the American people have been overridden twice, setting a bad precedent for global power over the Internet.

The tide of American politicians will ultimately determine whether this handover will be finalized. One thing is for certain: the Internet, with all its pros and cons, is at risk. As we watch it evolve over the next few years, we must stay alert to impending changes, and how-if at all-we can protect the crucial freedom of the Internet.