<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>Although I
have a legal background, I allow myself to question law and to argue beyond
law, based on social and political implications they entail. Quoting a bad law does not make it good. I will not follow laws uncritically, especially if this “law” we are talking about is actually a contract that I
cannot negotiate with the other party. Moreover, the validity of contracts and
their adjustment to the social reality should always be assessed under public
values.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span>Consumer’s
rights laws have a well established understanding about contracts that one side
cannot modify (we call them “contratos de adesão” in Portuguese, I don’t know
how to name them in English). They entail a juridical asymmetry: there is one
part that controls the terms and there is another party that does not have any
say about the terms. They bring about abuses by their own nature because they hamper
the ability to negotiate or to raise issues of interpretation. For instance, I
would like to argue with Facebook what they mean when they ban nudity. Can I post
pictures from Rio de Janeiro carnival? Can I post a cartoon with a nude
character? (the list would go on) But Facebook does not allow me to do that. I
need to give them a blank check: nude is whatever FB decides nudity is.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>Why am I in
FB and "agreed" with this terms of use? Very prosaic explanation. Unfortunately, this is the dominant platform
for online communication in my country. My family and friends, who live in far
away cities, post their lives in FB. Not being in FB is missing a big part of
their lives; is losing the chance of following their day-to-day. It means loss
of emotional ties to me. And, since FB is becoming a platform for general
communication, political protests, and so on, it would mean a handicap in my
ability to socially engage and make my views heard. So, do I have an option?
Sure, but the cost of this option is becoming higher everyday. Too high for me
to call this a real “option”. The suggestion to create a parallel FB if people
are not happy with the current one seems so out of the reality of an average user that I will not
make comments about it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>Matthias
has put this argument better than I could ever do it, so I quote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(26,26,26)">“as soon as social network providers are
so successful that their networks are a "quasi-public sphere" they
lose, it can be argued, the right to use terms of service to limit
international standards of freedom of expression. The more successful and
public a service is, the fewer restrictions may be allowed”.</span><span lang="EN-US" style></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>I certainly
know that FB is one channel among others to fight for (yes, I think we need to <u>fight</u>)
respect for women, for sexual and reproductive rights and to curb violence. I
have been involved with gender issues for many years. But FB is an increasingly
important channel with an impact on the off-line world. For example: when slut
walk took place during the weekend, no one argued about the images of it being
displayed anywhere (newspapers, TV). Now, thanks to FB censuring them and
banning profiles, the conservative forces in my country that are against
woman’s liberties (including religious movements) have found the space they
wanted to start a hypocritical crusade against these images. If we ban the slut
walk from the media, we certainly will have to ban carnival. But no one ever
complained about carnival. Interesting.<span style>
</span>Women’s bodies can be depicted when the are objects of lust, not when
they are subjects…<span style> </span>So, if progressive
forces do not act quickly, this can lead to a setback, especially because we
are in a crucial moment of our regulatory path. <span style> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>I am
totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. But this is a crossborder issue that
involves private forces and public interest. Tell me the place where we can
globally tackle this issue, all together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I
will be the first to attend and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come
about. But first we probably need to fight for such a space to exist.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style>Marília</span></p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marilia Maciel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Matthias, very interesting message, I very much agree. Thanks for the reference of the article. </div><div><br></div><div>Norbert:<span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">im my mind there </span><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">is no question that whatever freedom of expression issues there </span><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the issue of webmaster </span><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">liability is a freedom of expression problem of a much more serious </span><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">kind.</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">MM: Norbert, I agree with you on the importance of liability. Clear and reduced liability of intermediaries is something we are trying to push with the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, to avoid the chilling effect. The battle will take place in Congress soon. But, on the other hand, I think we cannot minimize the importance of the parameters of "good behavior" set by these global platforms, such as FB. I have a younger sister, and it amazes me how the Internet for younger generations is restricted to platforms like FB and apps. They carry content to these platforms in a way that they are the ones to intermediate digital reality for them. I think that rules established on ToRs are able to influence and modulate, very subtly, cultural ideas, such as the idea of morality. And the importance of this cannot be underestimated and it justifies the discussion of this topic, as much as the topic of intermediaries. </span></div>
<div> </div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div></div><div><br></div><div>Sala: <span style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> What if facebook was merely trying to comply with US laws and other countries laws that expressly prohibit obscenity.</span></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">MM: Sala, you are taking a commercial/juridical stance. I am taking a political stance. </span></font></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Sala: I raised this question to highlight that Facebook exist in an ecosystem where their actions are affected by third party influences or regulatory influences. Some would argue that there are diverse influences that drive political agenda whether civil society driven, or commercially driven. It is generally accepted in most democratic countries that laws merely reflect the pulse of the people. The exception of course is countries that have illegitimate governments such as those that have been usurped through Coup D' Etats and tyranny.</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Two points. First, I do not think that is up to FB to give concreteness to a notion of nudity or obscenity.</span></font></div>
</blockquote><div> </div></div><div>Sala: I think we need to re-visit the Terms of Service [ see: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms</a>]. When people sign up, they sign up knowing what is permitted and not permitted and have the "Free will" to disengage.</div>
<div>I have copied a section from their Terms of Service,see below:</div><div><br></div><div><b style="line-height:16px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:11px;font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif">3. Safety</b><br style="line-height:16px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:11px;font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif">
<br style="line-height:16px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:11px;font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:11px;font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif">We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help to do that, which includes the following commitments:</span><ol style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;font-size:11px;line-height:16px;text-align:left">
<li style>You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications (such as spam) on Facebook.</li><li style>You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.</li>
<li style>You will not engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, such as a pyramid scheme, on Facebook.</li><li style>You will not upload viruses or other malicious code.</li>
<li style>You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.</li><li style>You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.</li><div class="im">
<li><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.</span></li></div><li style>
You will not develop or operate a third-party application containing alcohol-related or other mature content (including advertisements) without appropriate age-based restrictions.</li><li style>
You will follow our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/page_guidelines.php#promotionsguidelines" style="color:rgb(59,89,152);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Promotions Guidelines</a> and all applicable laws if you publicize or offer any contest, giveaway, or sweepstakes (“promotion”) on Facebook.</li>
<li style>You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.</li><li style>You will not do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working of Facebook, such as a denial of service attack.</li>
<li style>You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.</li></ol></div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">This is a very complicated debate, of public interest, that cannot be carried out by the board of company alone, whose role is, naturally, to maximize profit and minimize risks. </span></font></div>
</blockquote></div><div>Sala: The point is to see if there is any logic. If we moved away from the online world and consider organizations and clubs who impose rules on their members, is it reasonable to expect a certain type of rule or code imposed on those who willingly choose to subscribe. How different should it be for an ordinary entity in the ecosystem. There are many other social networks aside from Facebook that one can go to if one does not like the rules. On the other hand, we see how European Privacy Regulators have effectively intervened where Facebook has violated some of these rights.</div>
<div class="im">
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Second, I personally do not care to which country law they are complying with. </span></font></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Sala: I understand but when an assertion is made that just because Facebook is a private company it exists to derive a profit at the expense of public interest, is on one view misleading if one does not show the holistic picture of what may be causing them to behave in a certain fashion. </div>
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">My point is that they are enforcing a FB policy norm that does not echo laws and common sense in Brazil and this interpretation is going against the fight of feminist movements and movements fighting for sexual rights here. </span></font></div>
</blockquote></div><div>Sala: I suppose this is how inventions, innovations are birthed. When one is dissatisfied with the status quo or with what currently exists and dreams of a better way. This is where you can start an alternative social network and create your own rules. As someone who is also an advocate against violence against women and children, I do not see any correlation to the advocacy work. There are more "concrete" ways to lodge the battle against violence from a National Framework perspective such as strengthening and making consistent sources of statistics, improving access to justice delivery systems having robust community intake centers, ensuring that governments prioritize and allocate finances etc. I was very impressed with how the District Superior Courts in Washington D.C after analysing statistics and noting that the incidence of violence seemed to be coming from the SE Quadrant came up with the idea to establish a Community Intake Center and Satellite technology where victims could access a Judge for emergency protection orders. [See:<span style="text-align:-webkit-left;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial">United Medical Center</span></div>
<span style="text-align:-webkit-left;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial">1328 Southern Avenue, SE, Suite 311,</span><span style="text-align:-webkit-left;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial">Washington, DC]. If we examine what occurred in Toronto that sparked the entire "March", it was the comments of a Police Officer which imputes a certain level of "insensitivity". Police Insensitivity is a global phenomenon and even New York had its share and sadly recently in Colorado, Jessica Gonzalez lost her children because the Police did not effect a restraining order. She took State to Court and it reached the Supreme Court and although they ruled against her, she won her matter when they took it to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights where the Commission said that the United States had a responsibility to Jessica.</span><div class="im">
<div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">We already have our internal disputes with conservative movements, as was pointed out by Jac, when he mentioned the Azeredo Bill. We do not need this external push from FB giving a restrictive interpretation of what is obscene and what is moral.</span></font></div>
</blockquote></div><div>Sala: I respect your perspective even if I disagree. </div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"> It just reinforces the conservative forces we are trying to fight.</span></font></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Sala: Why fight, when we can live in harmony? Everything has a place. The quiet stream in the middle of the rainforest and the loud volcano erupting are all part of one big ecosystem. </div>
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"> So, FB juridical compliance with some country's law is translating into a political setback here. </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></font></div></blockquote></div><div>Sala: I respectfully disagree.</div><div class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"></span></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Of course, more countries with a more conservative approach to sexual rights could argue the opposite, that FB disrespects local moral standards. What is the solution? It can't be one size fits all, otherwise we will only see ankles of women in FB. </span></font></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Sala: No one ever said that we should only see the ankles of women on FB. What we should be discussing is how to tackle the abuse of the exception under Article 19 of the ICCPR.</div>
<div><div class="h5"><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Fragmentation on service in each jurisdiction? I don't think this should be the way... But I think that, definitely, this should be a theme for global discussion.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Badouin, thanks! I appreciate. We will keep in touch.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Best,</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Marília</span></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"> </span></font></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at" target="_blank">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Dear all <br>
<br>
since Facebook's "Abuse Standards" were leaked in February we know
according to which policies Facebook policies content. I've summed
at the discussion here: <a href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html" target="_blank">http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html</a>.
<br>
<br>
There are a number of issues involved. One is that prima facie and
in purely legal terms a social networking company can choose to
censor certain content, if its users have agreed to submitting to
this censorship, as part of the terms of service to which they
submit to when creating an account. <br>
<br>
But there are limits to this: A company cannot engage in arbitrary
censorship. Further, as soon as social network providers are so
successful that their networks are a "quasi-public sphere" they
lose, it can be argued, the right to use terms of service to limit
international standards of freedom of expression. The more
successful and public a service is, the fewer restrictions may be
allowed. <br>
<br>
As I've heard pointed out, Facebook pursues something of a
'college morality'. Sex is bad, but violence is ok. The "Abuse
Standards" bear this out. <br>
<br>
Back in February I wrote in my blog: <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><span style="text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:18px;color:rgb(102,102,102);text-transform:none;font-size:13px;white-space:normal;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;word-spacing:0px"><span style="line-height:22px"></span></span></font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial">"Among pictures which are
not allowed, we find those showing
"Any OBVIOUS sexual activity [...] Cartoons/art included".Users
are also not allowed to "describe sexual activity in writing,
except when
an attempt at humor or insult."<br>
<br>
"Digital/cartoon nudity" is not ok, but "Art nudity" is
fine. People “using the bathroom” are not allowed, neither are
"[b]latant (obvious) depiction of camel toes and moose
knuckles".
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">Facebook also bans "[s]lurs or racial
comments of any kind", hate
symbols and "showing support for organizations and people
primarily known for violence." But the Guidelines caution that
"[h]umor overrules hate speech UNLESS slur words are present
or the humor is not evident." </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial">
Since the importance of Facebook as an international forum of
aggregation and
articulation of ideas is growing, the leaked document amount to
what it
believes should be an international moral consenus on allowed
content. This
would be problematic as the document is not free of bias and
should be vetted
more carefully against international law on freedom of
expression. With regard
to the generally excepted exceptions from freedom of expression,
however,
most of the standards pass muster. <br>
<br>
[...]
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
Content violative of human rights of others will always exist.
Social network
providers are obliged to protect their users from that content
but at the same
time must ensure that they do not infringe freedom of expression
unnecessarily.
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
What Facebook should now do is officially publish the Abuse
Standards, clarify
the moderation process, and start a vigorous debate among its
users on the
international standards of freedom of expression."
</font><font face="Arial"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<font face="Arial"><br>
For more, see <br>
<a href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html" target="_blank">http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html</a><br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Matthias<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am <a href="tel:31.05.2012%2009" value="+13105201209" target="_blank">31.05.2012 09</a>:01, schrieb Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro:</font><div><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="gmail_quote"><font face="Arial">On Thu, May 31, 2012
at 5:15 PM, Jac sm Kee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jac@apcwomen.org" target="_blank">jac@apcwomen.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
hi all,
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
a glimpse into how FB implements its censorship policies in
practice:
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-secret-censorship-list/" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-secret-censorship-list/</a>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
</font>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
In those countries, the people make their laws through the<br>
> parliament and one can say that they are legitimately
exercising<br>
> their sovereign right to determine what is
"acceptable" versus what<br>
> is "not acceptable" - do we then dare say that they
are wrong.<br>
> Every country has the sovereign right and the people
therein the<br>
> sovereign right to determine for themselves what is
"public<br>
> morality".<br>
</font>
</div>
<font face="Arial">actually, the state's duties to protect
public morality is precisely<br>
what provides legitimate cause of governments to intervene
and create<br>
more laws around censorship of the internet - and this needs
a closer<br>
and more critical analysis than accepting as is. e.g. in
brazil, the<br>
problematic azeredo bill was first pushed under economic
arguments<br>
(preventing financial fraud) - didn't work. but when it was
pushed<br>
under child protection arguments, it almost went through
without a<br>
hiccup and galvanised a lot of support (which also resulted
in a huge<br>
protests - but different story).<br>
<br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial">There are two opposing schools of
thought and maybe more, one holds the view that what is true
in the real world must hold true in the virtual world.
Paraphrasing that would mean that laws that are applicable
in real time should be applicable in the internet. The other
believes that there should be separate laws in real life and
separate laws for the Internet. Every event/transaction has
to be analysed according to its own merits so that the
danger of painting everyone with the same brush is reduced.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"> </font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial">
pornography is another obvious one, but then what does this
constitute<br>
and how is it defined can be a problem - as can be seen the
FB<br>
scenario. not the first time they have come across problems,
e.g. they<br>
are notorious for blocking photographs of women
breastfeeding. compare<br>
this against e.g. time magazine's recent controversial cover
of a<br>
woman breastfeeding, which is okay under US laws - so,
lowest common<br>
denominator internationally?</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial">This, I would respectfully submit is not
the correct test.What is culturally acceptable in Miami,
Florida, US is not the same as in Qatar, Malaysia etc. To
dictate to them what their public morality won't buy us any
ground as far as advocacy for freedom of expression is
concerned and only serves to alienate without educating and
giving them an opportunity to learn and grow. See the tests
that the US Supreme court used in the Miller case.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"> </font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial"> this would mean anything less than e.g.<br>
fully closed face and ankles and wrists would be
unacceptable. that<br>
doesn't quite make sense either.<br>
<br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial">That was never said. For the record, the
discussions have been about namely the following:-</font></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><font face="Arial">Is the right of freedom of expression
an absolute right? Is it an unfettered right?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">Does the right of freedom of
expression come with responsibilities?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">Who should be responsible when it
comes to the Internet?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">Are there exceptions under
International law?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">What are those exceptions?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">Are there instances where the
exceptions have been abused?</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">How can civil society advocate
responsibly?</font></li>
</ol>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial">
apc has been doing a research on examining how internet
regulation and<br>
regulation of sexuality goes hand-in-hand, and it's thrown
up some<br>
interesting points. from e.g. international aid for
infrastructure<br>
that comes encumbered with policy requirements and setting
national<br>
agendas on e.g. the issue of child pornography, to the
contentious<br>
geopolitical negotiations around sexual speech, health,
rights and<br>
citizenship. more info: <a href="http://erotics.apc.org" target="_blank">http://erotics.apc.org</a><br>
<br>
i've also been reading the conversations around EC and
democratization
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
of IG on this list with interest. and the thing that bugs me
about<br>
looking at democratization starting from national democratic
processes<br>
is that the potential of the internet to facilitate
democratic<br>
participation and deliberations is precisely because it is
currently<br>
still somewhat slippery from complete state control, as
opposed to<br>
e.g. broadcasting media and books and streets. </font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"> I think that when making a broad
assertion that you give specific examples so that there can
be discussion and debate.</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial">
so i am reluctant to<br>
say that states should ahve oversight and negotiate it from
there.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">There is some misunderstanding. In any
sovereign jurisdiction, civil society, private sector and
the state each have their place. The foundation of
multistakeholderism stems from the basic notion that the
governments, private sector and civil society have clear
functions. What is enhanced cooperation domestically within
a nation and what does it look like outside the country?
What should it look like?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="Arial">
although i understand that global governance and oversight
is<br>
different from national, but when states become the highest
hierarchy<br>
of authority, then my point of entry for engagement as civ
soc would<br>
be from that level. it's not something i am optimistic
about..<br>
</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font face="Arial"><br>
anyway, 2 cents,<br>
jac<br>
</font>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
><br>
> What FB is doing will potentially impact the way
that younger<br>
> generations<br>
>> will perceive liberty (including body
expression and sexual<br>
>> liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB
is actually being<br>
>> more conservative than traditional media,
endangering the<br>
>> progress we made on recent decades when it
comes to body<br>
>> expression women's rights and sexual rights.<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Is it facebook that is being conservative?
Afterall, they are<br>
>> merely trying to comply with the laws of the
land. I think that<br>
>> if people have an issue, they should take it up
with their<br>
>> respective Parliaments and have it debated.
These comments are<br>
>> restricted to the "Freedom of Expression" but
when it comes to<br>
>> "Privacy" and "misuse" of information and data
- I have different<br>
>> views.<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
>> I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of
decision on FB's<br>
>> hands, with no chance of democratic debate,
with no chance to<br>
>> scrutinize these policies they impinge on
users.<br>
>><br>
>> These are good discussions and Turkey and
Thailand and the US<br>
>> make<br>
> fascinating studies.<br>
><br>
>> Best, Marília<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Some basic conclusions: a) rights,
such as freedom of<br>
>>>>> expression,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Why would one who uses FB think they
can express themselves<br>
>>>> outside of the FB ToS/AUP?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> are being<br>
>>>>> restricted by the same platforms
that are praised and known<br>
>>>>> for<br>
>>>> enabling<br>
>>>>> their exercise; b) there is a
privatization of Internet<br>
>>>>> regulation,<br>
>>>> subtle,<br>
>>>>> based on contracts (terms of use)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Would you argue that Internet companies
have NO ToS?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> , but yet, dangerous; c) I see no
adequate<br>
>>>>> forum where we should take this
issue to be analized in a<br>
>>>> participatory and<br>
>>>>> balanced way in the global arena.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Nor should there be IMHO.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -- Cheers,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> McTim "A name indicates what we seek.
An address indicates<br>
>>>> where it is. A route indicates how we
get there." Jon<br>
>>>> Postel<br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala<br>
>>><br>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
<a>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</a> Cell:<br>
>>> <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito
Rio<br>
>><br>
>> Center for Technology and Society Getulio
Vargas Foundation Rio<br>
>> de Janeiro - Brazil<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</font>
</div>
</div>
<font face="Arial">- --<br>
Jac sm Kee<br>
Women's Rights Policy Coordinator<br>
Association for Progressive Communications<br>
<a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a>
</font><font face="Arial"> | <a href="http://erotics.apc.org" target="_blank">erotics.apc.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.takebackthetech.net" target="_blank">www.takebackthetech.net</a><br>
Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<font face="Arial"><br clear="all">
</font>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="Arial">-- <br>
</font>
<div><font face="Arial">Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Tweeter: @SalanietaT</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><a>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</a></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="Arial"><span style="line-height:16px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<font face="Arial"><br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial"><br>
</font>
</div></div><pre cols="72"><font face="Arial">--
Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich
T | <a href="tel:%2B43%20316%20380%206711" value="+433163806711" target="_blank">+43 316 380 6711</a> (Büro)
M | <a href="tel:%2B43%20676%20701%207175" value="+436767017175" target="_blank">+43 676 701 7175</a> (mobil)
F | <a href="tel:%2B43%20316%20380%209455" value="+433163809455" target="_blank">+43 316 380 9455</a>
E | <a href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at" target="_blank">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>
Blog | <a href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com" target="_blank">internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com</a>
--
Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
Teaching and Research Fellow
Institute of International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria
T | <a href="tel:%2B43%20316%20380%206711" value="+433163806711" target="_blank">+43 316 380 6711</a> (office)
M | <a href="tel:%2B43%20676%20701%207175" value="+436767017175" target="_blank">+43 676 701 7175</a> (mobile)
F | <a href="tel:%2B43%20316%20380%209455" value="+433163809455" target="_blank">+43 316 380 9455</a>
E | <a href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at" target="_blank">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>
Blog | <a href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com" target="_blank">internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com</a></font></pre>
</div>
<br></div></div><div>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><div><div><br></div>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>