[governance] China supports UK Internet Policy

[Riaz K Tayob]

On 2011/08/22 10:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> Exactly so, just as physical curfew does. That's why I think it's a 
> good analogy, and either form of curfew needs to be imposed only when 
> it's necessary and proportionate. 

Anticipatory shut downs (San Francisco metro), or lack of due process 
(Bush with telecoms operators) will need to be looked at with a 
different eye. Limits on speech and association are the rule, everything 
else is the exception and should be treated as such.

> ambivalent nature of technology
> "You should see the other guy" is never a good justification for one's 
> own wrongdoing.
That is not the point at all. The state has a responsibility to uphold 
freedoms and must intervene when necessary. Given that technology 
provides a number of options with which to "keep to the peace" the use 
of the nuclear option (curfew/blackout) would need to be carefully 
assessed, particularly that thinking about crimes are NOT crimes 
themselves. What happened in SanF recently is analogous to crimimal 
law's "death penalty" in terms of civil and political 
expression/association rights.
____________________________________________________________
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