[governance] Freedom of Speech and Expression

[Eric Dierker]

I am not exactly sure what you are asking for in this posed adventure, so I choose to answer.
 
Freedom of Speech and Expression

Let me begin, of all doggone places here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech .
It is a very cool place to start because the site itself is a wonderful expression of speech.
Oh how us "intellectuals" love to hate this pedestrian attempt to settle on common parlance. We eschew its' validity. We deride its' authors. It is not pure. I have heard some on this list suggest it should be censored because of its' innacuracies. 
But it is truly free speech in practice and it is beautiful.
 
Over some years I have been learning to speak Vietnamese. Vietnamese as a rule, like most Francophonia reject accents. They believe the language nuances must be pure or not at all. So my Vietnamese is censored. 
I study languages for the sake of it. I am familiar with ebonics, have spent good time in black ghettos, listened intently to the music eminating from the East West wars of Rap, grew up and logged many hours in locker rooms and playing fields where the intonations and lexicon was decidedly American Black.  But if I as a 51 year old white man were to break out -- I would be sorely censored. 
Especially young teenagers in school. We break into clicques. We decide what is cool; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cool  Every language has such a concept. If you are not cool at such an age you are shunned from speaking.
I was youngest of six. We sat nightly for family dinner. I think I was 8 or so before I said much more than grace and yes mam or sir. I was (no mistake - I tried a few times - bad result) censored.
How many ways are there to say "do not speak until spoken to"?  How many cultures have a similar proverb "keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, open it and remove all doubt"
How many self styled readers and lurkers are there on this list? How many restrain themselves from "speech". 
Shyness. Inability to find the "right" words. Past negative results. Low self esteem. Energy - lack thereof.
 
These examples I put forth to show real governance. Real restriction on free speech. It is our dayly self restraint. It is social not governmental.
 
Governance only has one proper place.  Protecting free speech. Society already restricts it enough.
 

--- On Wed, 9/9/09, linda misek-falkoff <ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> wrote:


From: linda misek-falkoff <ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Cc: respectful.interfaces at gmail.com, "l.d. misek-falkoff" <ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 8:40 PM



Hi Ginger and all:
 
Thanks much for sending this statement out (process) and for all the good thought and substantive work (merits) that went into it.
 
I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms"  which are often cited internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt) and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights , Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even if partially - achieved.. 
 
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems)
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear.
 
Hope there are 'takers on this';
 
With warm regards, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.)
for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.,
World Education Fellowship.
 
Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward.


On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic.

I agree.
Best, Ginger

shaila mistry wrote: 


Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!!
shaila
 
 



Hi Lisa and Max and everyone.
Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late.
I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. 
I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's
 regards 
Shaila 
 
  
DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09

The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the
programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority 
to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality
of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and
associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so
far. This is problematic because :

*    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of
expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to
development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies
of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state
and private actors at both national as well as global levels.
*    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to
knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance
these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally.
*    International human rights, as contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights
treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally
binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies
has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these
instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their
citizens.
*    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of
standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances
different rights against each other to preserve individual and public
interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights
are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,
such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance
with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating
the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework
also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other
stakeholders.  

The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human
rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the
planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights
are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This
should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and
national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive
policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The
Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the
organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to
support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines
and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. 
The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as 
renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.


thanks
Shaila
 
Life is too short ....challenge the rules 
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly 
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!  

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 


 
 








From: Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles

Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense.

Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that
rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns.

Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last
sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers
with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to
consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are
discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of
your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an
earlier version.

I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had
today.

The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving
towards consensus...

Thanks,
Lisa

--------------------

DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).

The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the
programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human
rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality
of human rights in the information society, but human rights and
associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so
far.  This is problematic as:

*    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of
expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to
development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies
of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state
and private actors at both national as well as global levels.
*    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to
knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance
these opportunities.
*    International human rights, as contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights
treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally
binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies
has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these
instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their
citizens.
*    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of
standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances
different rights against each other to preserve individual and public
interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights
are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,
such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance
with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating
the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework
also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other
stakeholders.  

The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human
rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the
planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights
are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This
should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and
national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive
policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The
Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the
organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to
support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines
and experts.



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and
principles

In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights
*framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework
with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of
standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes
"guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to
"opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital."

All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human
rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word
that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how
mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger
to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case
with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to
be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard"
to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the
person or entity being urged to take appropriate action.

The true status of international human rights is more as follows:

(1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the
rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society
goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their
most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and
respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even
if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and
often deadly quite soon.

(2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do
in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal
constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as
federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher
than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference
into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as
supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty
ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human
rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's
opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally
applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans).

(3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are
nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the
countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty
ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is
free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they
were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly.

(4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for
issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are
applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying
principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the
new context.

(5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact
binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used
in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional
scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a
"holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a
trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on
behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them
wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to
narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to
respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase
"opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is
joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with
the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law.

(6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it
exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of
the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on
torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international
law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification,
under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases
of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no
defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to
violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation.
(See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief
Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles
apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to
the Germans).

As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right
doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes
in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go
away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in
the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus
perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds.
If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual
rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at
Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two
decades.

In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS,
but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold
their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding
them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive
interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain
(a) why
> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think
> should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits.
>
> Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's
comments
> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to
ensure
> that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment
about
> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally
think we
> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in
positive
> rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should
of
> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation
of
> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and
engagement
> with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including
it in
> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start
> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include
as
> guidance for session organizers?
>
> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions
for
> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult
to
> incorporate into amendments.
>
> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this?
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
> --------------------
>
> DRAFT STATEMENT
>
> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society
Internet
> Governance Caucus.
>
> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention
in
> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis
Agenda
> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society,
but
> human rights and associated principles have received very little
attention
> at the IGF.  This is problematic as:
> *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and
privacy are
> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice.
> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
advancing human
> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and
resources. It
> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities.
> *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of
standards
> that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines
on how
> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual
and
> public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet
> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with
> concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers
both
> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be
addressed
> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This
should
> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental
rights,
> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and
> accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer
assistance to
> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like
to
> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant
guidelines and
> experts.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org]
> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49
> To: governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and
principles
>
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week
with
> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access.
>
> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to
draft
> a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of
> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not
to
> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues
> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why,
> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last
> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their
> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support
for
> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge
> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it
> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this
> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end
> of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a
> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can
> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then,
> rather than including it in a written statement already now.
>
> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using
> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only
of
> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but
> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments
> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too
> impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country
> like France as much as it would, say, China.
>
> Cheers,
> Anja
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 4389 (20090902) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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




-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090913/891bac35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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