In the post World War II-era, the then-Soviet Union was often derided for its closed nature, with the term "Iron Curtain" emerging as a symbolic way to describe the physical and philosophical boundaries imposed by the Soviet Union on its people. In recent years, the Iron Curtain was seen as coming down in a lot of places, especially following the rise of President Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s and the subsequent dismantling of the Berlin Wall. But today in Russia, the Iron Curtain seems to be making somewhat of a comeback for the Internet generation.

Over the course of the last several weeks, reports indicate the Russian government has been putting to use a new law that allows it to block parts of the Internet deemed either illegal or "harmful to children." So far, the recently minted “banhammer-and-sickle” has landed on several sites, including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (News - Alert). But Google--owners of YouTube--have resisted the Russian decree to remove materials that the government called "objectionable."

YouTube's resistance is somewhat unique. While it has been shown in the past working with the Russian government, resistance has also been found. For example, YouTube recently complied with a Russian government order to take down one video seen as promoting suicide, but the online video giant quickly followed up with a court case saying that the video was strictly for entertainment purposes, as the content reportedly showed viewers how to make a fake wound with makeup and a razor blade.

For Facebook (News - Alert), some cases were clear-cut even by its own standards, especially related to a page known as "Club Suicid," a suicide-themed user group. Facebook has also been seen addressing some content issues in other countries, like Holocaust-denial content in Germany. Twitter (News - Alert), meanwhile, followed suit on a couple of posts which seemed related to illegal drugs and the promotion of  suicide.

Reaction to the new law in Russia is mixed, with some believing it a valuable tool to prevent child pornography, drug use and suicide, while others follow up with concerns about use beyond these points, especially in regard to social networks. Some believe that the new law will be used to target protest movements against President Vladimir Putin. At the same time, the selective banning permits some sites to operate, allowing content that has no relation to the above-mentioned items to go through.

Since the law hasn't been seen as being particularly heavy-handed, concerns about it being misapplied to include all dissent aren't materializing even among the law's critics. Those critics seem more concerned about implication rather than actual current application, which is noteworthy in and of itself. Indeed, the thought of blocking content of any stripe may seem abhorrent to some, but even those believing in open content often find qualms when it comes to child pornography and the like.

It's a difficult balance to strike; we all want open content and access to the ideas that we both enjoy and often need. Yet at the same time it's not hard to see where some ideas simply do more harm than good. It's the execution of such measures designed to limit content that gives most users pause, however, and leaving such measures in the hands of the Russian government may well seem excessive itself.