Generally, she's saying the right things -- an open and uncensored Internet is a tremendous force for good in the world. She should also be addressing net neutrality in this context, but I can understand that she didn't want to broaden her scope too much.
Then, a couple of minutes in, she says this:
Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.[Full text of the speech here]
So, privacy, anonymity, and an open economy of ideas is good except when our enemies have it? Despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, I don't think she really wants a free Internet. She just wants an Internet that promotes US best-interests.
Considering some of the electronic surveillance actions our government took after 9/11, adminishing China is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. I was hoping that we'd also take this opportunity to embrace these ideas domestically as well as promoting them overseas.
Embracing a free exchange of information means embracing the exchange of dangerous and radical ideas along with the popular and prosperous ones. You cannot selectively grant privacy and anonymity -- either you support it or you don't.