[governance] China supports UK Internet Policy

[Ivar A. M. Hartmann]

We can't forget that a curfew is a impediment on *actions* (violence, theft
etc) and will therefore always be something different than cutting off
communications or the free flow of *information* (incitements of violence,
threats, planning of crimes).
After we blur the difference between *stopping criminal actions* themselves
and *censoring communication that arguably leads* to such actions, it's only
downhill from there...
Ivar

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:26, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
> wrote:

> In message <4E4F75A1.7060900 at gmail.com>, at 11:51:45 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011,
> Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> writes
>
>  And is it really about "internet immunity" or about the right to free
>> speech or association, that traditionally has limits and requires due
>> process before being violated, albeit with special enforcement issues
>> (although not too different from the mobile phone, like the San Francisco
>> pre-emptory strike on mobile communications recently, which itself raises
>> questions beyond the Bushisms on telecoms operators).
>>
>
> Most countries have provisions to declare a curfew, when there is civil
> disorder.  As always, it's a case of balancing the right of free assembly
> (of thieves and rioters) against the rights of the citizens whose property
> is being stolen and destroyed. Perhaps it would help understand the issues
> to characterise short interruptions in telecoms as an "electronic curfew".
>
> Where should this be debated: - we may find the basic principles are
> already in various treaties and declarations, and national governments will
> have legislated their own implementations of these long ago.
>
> The "Internet immunity" idea arises because of pressure to exclude it from
> any such curfew measures. The best place to address that is probably within
> the individual countries, because getting a global consensus first is likely
> to be much more difficult.
>
> These tensions have already arisen in a few countries where "Internet as a
> human right" collides with "three strikes and you are out" for intellectual
> property theft. But a three times convicted robber will have many of his
> freedoms taken away, but how many times do you allow someone to tweet
> instructions on which shops are available to loot?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
> ______________________________**______________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance<http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110820/ec7c67a0/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t