<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Milton<br>
<br>
The issue is very simple. There was due process of law, and a
decision was made - rightly or wongly (recognising that it is well
established jurisprudence in the ECHR - which is largely fair except
to muslims and the US deferring against or in favour - for "margin
of appreciation" to cope with "cultural" differences).<br>
<br>
The problems I have with your perspective, excluding the commitment
to a liberalism (which I have admired for the longest time), in the
context of discourses on this list, is that developing countries are
set a higher standard than that applicable to rich countries. The
implicit exceptionalism of the rich countries is what worries me
because why is it ok ot have California state law (or US anti-trust,
etc) apply extra-territorially but it is not acceptable to have
developing countries' laws apply territorially. There is a double
standard here that unfortunately does not pass robust disinterested
scrutiny... perhaps multilateralism is NOT so bad when compared to
the status quo (but then we would need to be evolutionary in a true
sense, if so then even sincere reformists of ICANN would rally to
get Parminder's IT4C radically altered while keeping the thrust of
his politics into the ICANN processes... but alas, just more of the
same...)...<br>
<br>
I recognise that even the framing of the debate, as is too prevalent
on this list, forecloses decolonising the people-centred imagination
to deal with issues of the internet being one global space, not
confined to national boundaries, with proxies to bypass national
laws available... there is something really new here that makes a
mockery of the facidism that such state action allows... while not
discounting the need to show umbrage in some form... now no one is
seriously believing that issues can be totally suppressed (except
perhaps for the RIAA and the USTR on IPRs) and things can be found,
so what use the expression of approbrium (that is culturally
necessary in some quarters, and may as well be given leeway unlike
the lawless protestations of some of the muslim countries)?...<br>
<br>
Just some thoughts, take as you please - and if you feel this is not
the right tenor for discourse here do let me know... I am open to
that, even if we disagree,.<br>
<br>
riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/09/28 07:31 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD223EFEA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">What about the users? Shouldn’t
they have a say in the rules?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Are you proposing to
re-territorialize the Internet so that national governments
can have full authority?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">According to one Brazilian
commentator I interacted with, the law in question is a
holdover from Brazil’s dictatorship period. Even if it were
not, the law in question is an anachronistic attempt to
control all public discourse about candidates prior to an
election (e.g., it would even be illegal to wear a T-shirt
with a candidates’ name on it).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">The child porn case you cite was a
highly politicized exploitation of the issue, and overlooks
the fact that Google was being asked to monitor/spy on its
users (just as certain laws in the US asked for massive data
retention). Next you will say that Google has to be
regulated by govt to protect its users privacy, right?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Google or any other multinational
social media provider isn’t perfect. But terms of use
constitute a private ordering that users can opt out of if
they don’t use the service. Who in Brazil (or any other
country) gets to opt out of dumb laws and dumb judges?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 28, 2012 11:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Ivar A. M.
Hartmann<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Google's officer with
detention order in brasil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Em 28/09/2012, às 10:35, Ivar A. M.
Hartmann escreveu:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">For those
overlooking the key issue in this and similar cases in
Brazil, it is not whether Google wants to secure its
holding as a market leader or ensure its profit. The key
issue is free speech.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, is it NOT. The key issue is about
power, as highlighted on this Der Spiegel article: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html">http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The key issue on democracy countries
like Brazil is: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">who
sets the rules in this business: Google, with its
terms of use, or the government and courts?"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I remember you that this was NOT the
first time that the chief of Google's office in Brazil
faces criminal charges for not comply with brazilians
court orders. The former Google Brazil president (now
Facebook VP for Latin America) was indicted in 2006/07
for not comply with dozens of brazilians court orders
that demanded Orkut users data to assist brazilian law
enforcement authorities on child sexual abuse and
neonazi cases: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.prsp.mpf.gov.br/prdc/sala-de-imprensa/noticias_prdc/noticia-3294">http://www.prsp.mpf.gov.br/prdc/sala-de-imprensa/noticias_prdc/noticia-3294</a>
(english auto translation: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/S62POw">http://bit.ly/S62POw</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ps: an english background reading on
this case is avaliable on WSJ website: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119273558149563775.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119273558149563775.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
-- <br>
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e <br>
acredita-se estar livre de perigo. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>