AW: [governance] Free Web Plan Being Pushed by FCC Head

Mon Dec 15 09:24:10 EST 2008

Good point, but who can provide a universal definition of "censorship"?

In all legal documents - both internationally and nationally - there are legally justifications for the restriction of freedom of expression as long as these restrictions are justified by law and are aimed to protect other human values. Prohibition of advertisement for tobacco in TV commercials  is seen by the tobacco industry as "censorship" and as a violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), guaranteeing freedom of expression. But governments refer to Article19, para 3 of the International Covenant of Poltical and Civil Rights (1966) where it is stated that the right to freedom of expression can be restricted to protect - inter alia - public health. If there is a conflict between two universal rights and public values - here freedom of expression versus public health - in a democratic society an independent court should look into the arguments of both sides, balance the conflicting value and come with a case based decision. In my eyes censorshop starts if there is no neutral third party in place like inb China where the Communist Party - and not an independent court - defines when freedom of expression can be restricted to protect "public order". 

The problem with the Internet is that we have different understandings and priorities if it comes to the balance of conflicting human values. And there is no Universal Court of Human Rights. This is one of the issues which should be further discussed by the Dynamic Coalition of the Internet Bill of Rights. In my eyes such an Universal Court on Human Rights-  which would deal with this kind of conflicts - should be on our agenda and the caucus should be a driving force. Today a little bit utopian, tomorrow probably a realistic perspective. 

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Mo 15.12.2008 13:40
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Lee W McKnight'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Free Web Plan Being Pushed by FCC Head

> And PLEASE note that this is a CENSORED internet, which is precisely what some of us fear will be the price of government-provided "internet for all."  (Milton) 

There is no necessary connection between publicly provided net  and a censored net. The analogy often applied earlier comparing a 'right to the Internet' with the right to education is useful here. Public education has mostly meant some kind of a public curriculum. States and communities have dealt with the issue of inappropriate kinds of control over 'public curriculum' in a nuanced and dynamic manner. No one has ever proposed scrapping public education provisions to deal with the problems associated with state's role in determining/ influencing curriculum. 

The comparison with right to education and state's role in curriculum/content development however ends here. There perhaps was (is) a structural and also a social requirement for state's involvement in curriculum decisions in terms of public education. Internet however is entirely different. Any amount of different content, of any number of different types, *can* be accommodated *equally* on the Internet. However, public support is still required to provide 'equalizing' conditions for production of all, and different, kinds of content. (Canada recently has announced some such provisions to ensure there is sufficient "Canadian" content on the Internet, as the government used to do to ensure enough Canadian content on TV and Film media.)

IT for Change just now concluded an international workshop on 'ICTs for participatory local development' where the combination of - as well as nuances and dynamics of - 'public provisioning' along with 'local community decision making' was emphasized to deal with equity and social justice aspects of the emerging information society. The two are not exclusive, in fact they need to complement one another, and public provisioning has to be done in a manner that strengthens rather than weakens 'local community decision making'. The same extends to the issue of expanding individual's freedoms through public action, something which underpins Sen's capability rights approach and UNDP's Human Development approach to development policy based on Sen's work. 

As for some members skepticism about public provisioning on the Internet; who proposes what solution depends of where one is placed. Societies where markets are in a good position to deal with the dynamics of an emerging information (or Internet-based) society would have a different take on this issue than societies where these dynamics are furthering inequalities, both within the societies and vis a vis the Northern societies. To the extent that we are speaking in terms that are sought to be applied across the world, we need to be sensitive to social and political realities of the whole world.  

Parminder 

________________________________

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Subject: RE: [governance] Free Web Plan Being Pushed by FCC Head

And PLEASE note that this is a CENSORED internet, which is precisely what some of us fear will be the price of government-provided "internet for all." 

Outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is
pushing for action in December on a plan to offer free, pornography-free
wireless Internet service to all Americans, despite objections from the
wireless industry and some consumer groups.

The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part
of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder
would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free
Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would
have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be
slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other
material not suitable for children. The FCC's proposal mirrors a plan
offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins
Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

Consumer advocates have objected to the FCC's proposed pornography
filter, while the wireless industry has objected to the entire free
Internet plan. To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is
proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

T-Mobile USA, in particular, has raised concerns. The Deutsche Telekom
AG unit paid about $4 billion a few years ago for nearby airwaves and
has complained that the free wireless Internet plan will likely result
in interference for consumers of its new 3G wireless network. The FCC
dismissed the company's interference concerns this fall, although
T-Mobile disagreed with that finding.

--
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change
www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
http://ITforChange.net <http://itforchange.net/> 
http://India.IS-Watch.net <http://india.is-watch.net/> 
http://IS-Watch.net <http://is-watch.net/> 
*IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations' Economic and Social Council*

____________________________________________________________
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