5 ms·
As much as like I EFF's coverage in general: > And we will continue to press our partners to allow digital information to cross borders unimpeded. We are worki
by fweespee_ch 11y ago
As much as like I EFF's coverage in general:
> And we will continue to press our partners to allow digital information to cross borders unimpeded. We are working to preserve a single, global Internet, not a Balkanized Internet defined by barriers that would have the effect of limiting the free flow of information and create new opportunities for censorship.
This is technically correct. It doesn't create new opportunities for censorship. These opportunities always existed.
> The TPP illustrates these shortcomings well. Its free flow of information rules would only be enforced for foreign enterprises, and only those entities based out of countries that have signed the TPP. So if a country were to enact a law banning some type of online content, the TPP's free flow of information rules would do nothing to prevent the enforcement of that censorship against websites or platforms that are locally-owned in that country.
Yes and nothing prevents that already. The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty equation, it is a trade treaty.
The TPP makes things worse but such weak attacks against statements that are technically correct are largely ineffective.
Posts like these are much more effective as they show legitimate problems that could have been resolved favorably (for the general population) in a trade treaty:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp-and-your-digital-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp-an...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-extends-criminal-penalties https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-dras...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- frandroid 11y ago> The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty equation, it is a trade treaty. Except that trade treaties become supranational constitutions when enterprises in other countries can use trade courts to enforce treaty clauses over national governments' own legislation and constitutions since they usually surrender their sovereignty to these treaties. These kinds of effects have already been amply documented with regards to the WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA and others. This is political science mainstream. See: Stephen Clarkson, Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State (2002), among many others.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- fweespee_ch 11y agoPlease provide evidence I can sue the US government as a purely domestic entity under NAFTA arbitration. Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true.
- cariaso 11y agoI can't provide specific evidence for you to sue the US Govt over NAFTA, but your comment > Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true. seems overly broad. I think there are established cases which disprove that. All it has to do is have an impact across the border, not necessarily trade across it. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stateco... is full of interesting examples with Hunt v Washington State Apple Ass'n (1977) being one of many that seems relevant. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich for an (arguably) purely domestic california marijuana law.
- fweespee_ch 11y agoThe topic is trade treaties, not the Commerce Clause. You seem lost on the context...the Commerce Clause isn't relevant to the impact of a trade treaty on domestic policy in regards to domestic companies.
- schoen 11y ago> This is technically correct. It doesn't create new opportunities for censorship. These opportunities always existed. I suspect Maira (my colleague) was referring to opportunities for censorship due to the new IP provisions, rather than due to the failings of the free-flow-of-information provisions.