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

Tue Aug 5 23:02:39 EDT 2008

Ian and all,

  If you have a problem with the site, racist.ru, perhaps you
should direct your problem, which BTW I agree with, to the
DOJ humans rights division.

Ian Peter wrote:

> Lisa makes a very strong case for human rights experience and structures to
> underpin policy development in this area. Certainly I agree with this as a
> logical way to proceed.
>
> But let's look at a hypothetical (but fairly typical) situation. Let's call
> the site racist.ru. The registry is in Russia. The owner is a British
> citizen. The site is about South African race issues and the participants
> are from many countries. The servers are located in Texas USA because that's
> a nice cheap place to host sites.
>
> The hypothetical site clearly offends SA human rights legislation. However
> what action if any could be taken in this case?
>
> The registry may refuse to act because Russian law is not involved. The
> hosting provider may only respect a subpoena from a US court. The site owner
> is on extended holidays in the Bahamas and is not answering emails. The
> South African authorities have plenty else to think about and this becomes
> just too hard.
>
> And secondly is this an internet governance issue at all? It's easy to take
> the line that, like in phishing scams, its not an Internet governance issue
> at all but just a problem with all our institutions adapting to the
> realities of the internet era. Human rights is human rights, fraud is fraud,
> law is law, whatever the communication media involved is, let everyone get
> their house in order and the Internet remains neutral to all of that and has
> no responsibilities at all except to respond as individual entities to legal
> requirements presented to them in their own national jurisdiction only. It's
> an enticing argument in line with calls for minimalist Internet governance.
>
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk]
> > Sent: 07 August 2008 01:11
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing ticket scam]
> >
> > 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: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008
> > 6:03 AM
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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