rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

[Milton L Mueller]

p.s., when do I start my new job at IT4C?

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:09 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
> Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...
> 
> 
> > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. 
> ALAWCAI. If
> > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.
> 
> Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may' 
> to be added in
> the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can 
> agree to this.
> 
> As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) 
> clause, you know
> that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even 
> to the negative
> ones. 
> 
> You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. 
> Within this
> group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to 
> 'limit' what may
> be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of 
> postings we can
> limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant 
> altogether. We
> are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate)
> cannot afford it, right. 
> 
> Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list?
> 
> In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, 
> about which I ma
> getting many complaints, it may be found necessary 
> collectively (again) to
> revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have
> discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may
> consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to 
> 'afford' if we
> have to remain effective etc.
> 
> > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality 
> cases I would
> > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For 
> example, if voting
> > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an 
> international
> > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think 
> individuals
> > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. 
> Even if it does
> > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to 
> political
> > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. 
> But there is
> > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)
> 
> You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to 
> above, we are
> really far away form each other in our views. No one 
> advocates rights in
> manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy 
> works, and the
> basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as 
> per incentive. It
> is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the
> society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights - 
> positive as
> well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special
> circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay' 
> for fulfilling
> someone's right. Others are able to think of some other 
> situations like this
> one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing 
> rights, and
> the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and 
> the economy.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen
> > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> > > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving 
> interpretation that
> > > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have 
> an implicit
> > > "as long as we can afford it" -clause.
> > 
> > ;-)
> > 
> > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. 
> ALAWCAI. If
> > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.
> > 
> > One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for 
> freedom of
> > expression.
> > 
> > > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet
> > > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever
> > > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right,
> > > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your
> > > own language, I ask: who should pay for it?
> > 
> > Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to
> > volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask 
> also whether
> > making such a demand is the best way to get such content in 
> one's own
> > language produced? Are there not more effective policy 
> options? Is there
> > a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those
> > more effective options?
> > 
> > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality 
> cases I would
> > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For 
> example, if voting
> > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an 
> international
> > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think 
> individuals
> > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. 
> Even if it does
> > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to 
> political
> > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. 
> But there is
> > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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