[governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance"

[Milton L Mueller]

Spam and virus filters implemented by ISPs are a necessary evil. 
In some sense they contradict the principle but in the case of viruses
are clearly justified as crime protection and are not discriminatory;
spam is more difficult issue in that there is always a risk of false
positives and there is not always a clear definition of what is spam. 

Milton Mueller, Professor
Syracuse University
School of Information Studies
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 
------------------------------
The Convergence Center:
http://www.digitalconvergence.org <http://www.digitalconvergence.org/> 


 

________________________________

From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On
Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:31 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle
for Internet Governance"


Educational.  Query, on a third hand ...
 
Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at
the corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side?
(Please reconstrue in any more apt terms).
 
Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*.

 
On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: 



	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto: vb at bertola.eu
<mailto:vb at bertola.eu> ]
	> I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for
network
	> neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first
amendment"
	> that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not
democracy 
	
	A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio.
	
	On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly,
does not make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal,
and to prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or
using/possessing it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from
installing filters on their own terminal devices and for private web
sites to refuse to carry certain kinds of content. 
	
	On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the
network intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical
integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift
the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade
discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship.
In some cases it means that content people don't like will be
accessible. (Not that it isn't already.) 
	
	As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free
expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN
principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment,
but if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free
expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a
NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on
the constraints on internet expression and interaction? 
	
	
	
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071108/0e0f0d8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071108/0e0f0d8e/attachment.txt>