[governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam]

Wed Aug 6 11:27:54 EDT 2008

I strongly support Lisa's points.  Not to disagree 
with Milton and Rony about content one does 
not like.  I support their views.

But I think we have to be able to talk about 
rights and not just make assumptions if we are 
going to break the deadlock we found in WSIS 
between rigths-friendly countries, mostly from 
the developed world, and the many developing 
country governments that are not very 'rights-
friendly' and whose citizens tend not to prioritise 
rights.

This really important e.g. here in South Africa 
where we have a good rights-framework on 
paper, but not in every-day practice.  Often the 
same policy makers who will claim superiority 
because of South Africa's fantastic constitution 
will advocacy for censorship on the internet in 
the interests of child-protection.  

On the one hand this is because rights 
awareness and commitment to rights is pretty 
fragile here at the moment, but on the other 
hand it is often just because they don't 
understand what rights are and how the 
principles should underpin new areas of policy.

Anriette

PS - can't we change this subject line?

Date sent:      	Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:10:59 +0100
From:           	"Lisa Horner" <lisa at global-
partners.co.uk>
To:             	<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject:        	RE: [governance] Taking down a 
site [was: beijing ticket scam]
Send reply to:  	
governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner" 
<lisa at global-partners.co.uk>

> I agree that this might not be the best or most clear cut case to
> start working with.  But basically what I'm trying to suggest is that
> we try and work out how to build on the 60 years of development of the
> international human rights system so that it is capable of addressing
> and providing guidance on relevant social and ethical issues that have
> arisen with the evolution of the internet.  The system includes
> frameworks for balancing out tensions between competing rights and
> responsibilities - indeed in this particular case it could well be
> ruled that the site doesn't constitute sufficient 'incitement to cause
> harm' to justify action.  Obviously the system isn't geared to rule on
> issues such as the Beijing scam - there are more appropriate arenas
> for that (although I think we'd all agree that they can't argue
> against regulation of their site on free expression grounds...).  But
> it's exactly these kinds of grey issues around FoE that the human
> rights system is capable of dealing with, or at least should be.  
> 
> I just think that it's important that the human rights framework is
> used in the first place - to benefit from its 60 years of evolving to
> deal with such issues, to ensure that it is kept up to date with
> salient issues of our time and to ensure that norms underlying
> internet governance support human rights.  Obviously dealing with
> cases in this way wouldn't work in regions that do not have human
> rights institutions that act in accordance with international
> standards.  But South Africa has one of the most progressive rights
> regimes in the world, supported in turn by the African Charter and the
> Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa - the
> most progressive elaboration of FoE in any international agreement
> (depending of course on your interpretation of 'progressive').  Cases
> might of course have different outcomes in different countries
> according to different conceptions of rights, the most obvious being
> between the USA and other countries concerning acceptable limitations
> on FoE.  But the human rights system has developed to cope with
> 'trans-boundary' differences of interpretation and opinion: it's by no
> means perfect but it hasn't collapsed because of them.
> 
> Rather than avoiding using the human rights framework for fear that it
> will serve as a cover for restrictions on rights, we need to work with
> and develop the system to make sure that it's capable of addressing
> these issues.  I'm keen to work out how we can do this.
> 
> I'm thinking in terms wider than the specific issue of what
> constitutes acceptable limitations on FoE.  But in this specific case,
> in short, the tools and systems are in place to determine whether
> Rui's site does constitute a violation of rights in South Africa, or
> whether, as you argue, a legitimate means of expression as they would
> be ruled to be in the USA (and as Rony pointed out, possibly
> elsewhere).  The fact that they are in place is a positive thing that
> we can build on and work with.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
> Sent: 06 August 2008 15:02
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner; Rui Correia
> Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket
> scam]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk]
> > 
> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with
> > the South African Human Rights Commission?  The SA bill of rights
> > states
> that
> > freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that is
> based
> > on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes
> incitement to
> > cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation in SA?
> 
> Lisa:
> As Rui herself said, the site does not contain incitement to harm.
> It's political speech: an old and defeated racist party publicizing
> its views, which of course are pretty stupid. 
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't see anything here but an attempt to suppress
> expression that you don't like. The problem with the website is just
> that she, and you, disagree with it and find it offensive. 
> 
> Let's be honest about this.
> 
> Rui:
> > I am personally a defender of freedom of expression. However, like
> > any other right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations,
> > such
> 
> How many times have I heard this? Exactly what the Chinese state and
> everyone else interested in censorship says. They all "support freedom
> of expression," except when someone says something they feel
> threatened by or strongly disagree with.
> 
> That kind of "support" is worthless.
> 
> The underlying message is clear: you are saying "if I don't agree with
> what you say, I have the right to use force to suppress you." From
> that point on it's just a political competition to see who or what
> gets suppressed. I don't see any difference in principle between this
> and the attempts of, e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or
> Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their heresies. Insulting the prophet or
> criticizing Islam is, in their world view, just as reprehensible as
> racism is to you. Perhaps even more so. 
> 
> What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of
> "human rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand
> the moral, political and philosophical basis of free expression. 
> 
> At least when radical Islamists or Chinese authoritarians suppress
> speech, they don't say they are doing it in the name of "human
> rights." This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear
> authoritarian, because at least you know what the dictators are up to.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date:
> 8/3/2008 1:00 PM
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance