The spread of democracy seemed like a good idea way back in the 20th century. Now we know better. We can't lead with democracy when trying to mold a world in our own image, especially when we define democracy simply as an exercise in free elections when it is so much more than that. We must lead with freedom and let democracy unfold in its own time, through people's own efforts as it inevitably would once they felt the joy and responsibility of practicing freedom (and freedom, like ice-skating, tight-rope walking and building networks, takes lots of practice).

To be free requires first and foremost that people have uninhibited access to information and the right to act on that information as they see fit. The press and the Internet are the best means today for the worldwide distribution of that information. They may not be the most reliable sources--except, of course, for Telephony, Maxim magazine and Animal Planet--but they are the best distributors.

However, sometimes the distribution channels get blocked, such as when China made Google check its double-Os at the door and agree to block access to certain information on the Internet before it was allowed to do business in its country. Microsoft, too, went macro-soft when it caved in to China's demand last year to shut down the site of a Chinese blogger who dared write about China's relations with Taiwan and the lack of a free media.

These pioneers of, and innovators in, the World Wide Web appear to be selling out the very world-changing idealism in which they made us all believe. And for what, access to the biggest market opportunity they will ever see? Hell yes. Wouldn't you?

I've questioned Western countries' unbridled enthusiasm for the Chinese market in the past, but that cat seems to be too far out of the bag now to protest. Besides, engagement always seems to be a better--and safer--matter of discourse than disengagement and estrangement. Given that, is this recent example by U.S. companies of participating in censorship such an affront? Is Google doing "a grave disservice to democracy, human rights and individuals in China," as Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said this week?

Not if what Bill Gates said yesterday is true. He said, "The ability to really withhold information no longer exists." I think he's probably right. It is only a matter of time. Information, like life, finds a way.

Besides, the real threat is not that these companies are helping China continue to commit human rights violations or "furthering the cause of the Chinese Communist dictatorship,'' as Rep. Dana Rorhabacher, (R-Calif.), said yesterday.

The real threat is that the giant economic machine that is Communist China will continue to influence markets around the world, including those in the freedom-loving West, and that those same cyber-censorship practices from China will take root here. The seeds of censorship have long been sown here in the land of paranoia and superstition and still sprout when conditions are favorable. So we ought to be watching our own Big Brothers and let information do its thing elsewhere. Let it find a way. And whenever possible give it a little nudge.

E-mail me at tmcelligott@prismb2b.com.