Well, hooray! I wonder if she means it? Is this just the position until the next WikiLeaks-type crisis looms?

Opening a two-day conference on digital freedom here sponsored by Google and the Dutch government, Mrs. Clinton warned that restrictions on the Internet threatened not only basic freedoms and human rights, but also international commerce and the free flow of information that increasingly makes it possible.

“When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled and people constrained in their choices, the Internet is diminished for all of us,” Mrs. Clinton said. She added: “There isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet. There’s just the Internet.”

Mrs. Clinton and others cited examples in which autocratic countries — often with the assistance of international technology corporations — cracked down on access to the Internet or the use of it, including Syria, Iran, China and Russia. But increasingly some democratic countries have tried to restrict information, a development that underscores the complexity of controlling an essential part of modern life.

That last point about democratic nations is exactly where the slippery slope begins. The push for localized internet filtering often originates under the guise of consumer protection or copyright enforcement. Western lawmakers frequently debate implementing network-level blocks on peer-to-peer file sharing protocols, unlicensed streaming platforms, and offshore casino sites to shield local industries. Yet, as civil liberties groups consistently point out, once the technical infrastructure for this kind of digital censorship is legally established, the temptation for governments to expand its scope becomes almost irresistible.