[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil

Thu May 31 09:14:45 EDT 2012

Sex offenders fight for right to use Facebook 

 http://news.yahoo.com/sex-offenders-fight-facebook-190311149.html

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)  Registered sex offenders who have been banned from
social networking websites are fighting back in the nation's courts,
successfully challenging many of the restrictions as infringements on free
speech and their right to participate in common online discussions.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T.
Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:02 AM
To: Jac sm Kee
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel; McTim
Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in
Brazil

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi all,

a glimpse into how FB implements its censorship policies in practice:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-sec
ret-censorship-list/

In those countries, the people make their laws through the
> parliament and one can say that they are legitimately exercising
> their sovereign right to determine what is "acceptable" versus what
> is "not acceptable" - do we then dare say that they are wrong.
> Every country has the sovereign right and the people therein the
> sovereign right to determine for themselves what is "public
> morality".

actually, the state's duties to protect public morality is precisely
what provides legitimate cause of governments to intervene and create
more laws around censorship of the internet - and this needs a closer
and more critical analysis than accepting as is. e.g. in brazil, the
problematic azeredo bill was first pushed under economic arguments
(preventing financial fraud) - didn't work. but when it was pushed
under child protection arguments, it almost went through without a
hiccup and galvanised a lot of support (which also resulted in a huge
protests - but different story).

There are two opposing schools of thought and maybe more, one holds the view
that what is true in the real world must hold true in the virtual world.
Paraphrasing that would mean that laws that are applicable in real time
should be applicable in the internet. The other believes that there should
be separate laws in real life and separate laws for the Internet. Every
event/transaction has to be analysed according to its own merits so that the
danger of painting everyone with the same brush is reduced.

pornography is another obvious one, but then what does this constitute
and how is it defined can be a problem - as can be seen the FB
scenario. not the first time they have come across problems, e.g. they
are notorious for blocking photographs of women breastfeeding. compare
this against e.g. time magazine's recent controversial cover of a
woman breastfeeding, which is okay under US laws - so, lowest common
denominator internationally?

This, I would respectfully submit is not the correct test.What is culturally
acceptable in Miami, Florida, US is not the same as in Qatar, Malaysia etc.
To dictate to them what their public morality won't buy us any ground as far
as advocacy for freedom of expression is concerned and only serves to
alienate without educating and giving them an opportunity to learn and grow.
See the tests that the US Supreme court used in the Miller case.

this would mean anything less than e.g.
fully closed face and ankles and wrists would be unacceptable. that
doesn't quite make sense either.

That was never said. For the record, the discussions have been about namely
the following:-

1.	Is the right of freedom of expression an absolute right? Is it an
unfettered right? 

2.	Does the right of freedom of expression come with responsibilities? 

3.	Who should be responsible when it comes to the Internet? 

4.	Are there exceptions under International law? 

5.	What are those exceptions? 

6.	Are there instances where the exceptions have been abused? 

7.	How can civil society advocate responsibly?

apc has been doing a research on examining how internet regulation and
regulation of sexuality goes hand-in-hand, and it's thrown up some
interesting points. from e.g. international aid for infrastructure
that comes encumbered with policy requirements and setting national
agendas on e.g. the issue of child pornography, to the contentious
geopolitical negotiations around sexual speech, health, rights and
citizenship. more info: http://erotics.apc.org

i've also been reading the conversations around EC and democratization
of IG on this list with interest. and the thing that bugs me about
looking at democratization starting from national democratic processes
is that the potential of the internet to facilitate democratic
participation and deliberations is precisely because it is currently
still somewhat slippery from complete state control, as opposed to
e.g. broadcasting media and books and streets. 

 I think that when making a broad assertion that you give specific examples
so that there can be discussion and debate.

so i am reluctant to
say that states should ahve oversight and negotiate it from there.

There is some misunderstanding. In any sovereign jurisdiction, civil
society, private sector and the state each have their place. The foundation
of multistakeholderism stems from the basic notion that the governments,
private sector and civil society have clear functions. What is enhanced
cooperation domestically within a nation and what does it look like outside
the country? What should it look like?

although i understand that global governance and oversight is
different from national, but when states become the highest hierarchy
of authority, then my point of entry for engagement as civ soc would
be from that level. it's not something i am optimistic about..

anyway, 2 cents,
jac

>
>
> What FB is doing will potentially impact the way that younger
> generations
>> will perceive liberty (including body expression and sexual
>> liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB is actually being
>> more conservative than traditional media, endangering the
>> progress we made on recent decades when it comes to body
>> expression women's rights and sexual rights.
>>
>
>
>> Is it facebook that is being conservative? Afterall, they are
>> merely trying to comply with the laws of the land. I think that
>> if people have an issue, they should take it up with their
>> respective Parliaments and have it debated. These comments are
>> restricted to the "Freedom of Expression" but when it comes to
>> "Privacy" and "misuse" of information and data - I have different
>> views.
>>
>
>
>> I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of decision on FB's
>> hands, with no chance of democratic debate, with no chance to
>> scrutinize these policies they impinge on users.
>>
>> These are good discussions and Turkey and Thailand and the US
>> make
> fascinating studies.
>
>> Best, Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of
>>>>> expression,
>>>>
>>>> Why would one who uses FB think they can express themselves
>>>> outside of the FB ToS/AUP?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> are being
>>>>> restricted by the same platforms that are praised and known
>>>>> for
>>>> enabling
>>>>> their exercise; b) there is a privatization of Internet
>>>>> regulation,
>>>> subtle,
>>>>> based on contracts (terms of use)
>>>>
>>>> Would you argue that Internet companies have NO ToS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> , but yet, dangerous; c) I see no adequate
>>>>> forum where we should take this issue to be analized in a
>>>> participatory and
>>>>> balanced way in the global arena.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nor should there be IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates
>>>> where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon
>>>> Postel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell:
>>> +679 998  <tel:%2B679%20998%202851> 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio
>> de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>
>
>

- --
Jac sm Kee
Women's Rights Policy Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net
Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS
IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a
4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD
79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ
esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h
LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y=
=HB8Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120531/90157085/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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