3 ms·

The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violatio

by qq66 14y ago

The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating revolutionary activities.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kiba 14y ago
They might as well just say "freedom of expression".
- dllthomas 14y ago
  I'm not sure that protection an individuals freedom to express themselves necessarily entails protection of the transport of encodings of that expression - I would rather see that latter protection made explicit.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  What’s so bad about clarifying that that includes the internet? I mean, there are politicians in democratic states who believe that protections afforded to the press on the basis of rights don’t apply to, for example bloggers. It’s not altogether obvious why freedom of expression or speech should automatically include the internet.
smsm42 14y ago
Are they going to issue press-release on every possible form of expression? That'd take a while, but then again - generating headlines is their business, so it's a win-win.
- sirclueless 14y ago
  The slippery slope argument is a straw man. The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty. For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan. Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Right, before they did it everybody thought "freedom of speech" meant only that you can use your actual voice freely. But now everybody knows you can also use Twitter! So what about using printed media? Radiowaves? Phone communications? Should we wait for UN to explain us about that too? For anybody seriously considering the question it mus be obvios the question is not in the means of expression and freedom of speech was never meant to be restricted to exercising one's vocal cords.

by qq66 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kiba 14y ago

They might as well just say "freedom of expression".

dllthomas 14y ago
I'm not sure that protection an individuals freedom to express themselves necessarily entails protection of the transport of encodings of that expression - I would rather see that latter protection made explicit.
mkaltenecker 14y ago
What’s so bad about clarifying that that includes the internet? I mean, there are politicians in democratic states who believe that protections afforded to the press on the basis of rights don’t apply to, for example bloggers. It’s not altogether obvious why freedom of expression or speech should automatically include the internet.

smsm42 14y ago

Are they going to issue press-release on every possible form of expression? That'd take a while, but then again - generating headlines is their business, so it's a win-win.

sirclueless 14y ago
The slippery slope argument is a straw man. The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty. For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan. Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Right, before they did it everybody thought "freedom of speech" meant only that you can use your actual voice freely. But now everybody knows you can also use Twitter! So what about using printed media? Radiowaves? Phone communications? Should we wait for UN to explain us about that too? For anybody seriously considering the question it mus be obvios the question is not in the means of expression and freedom of speech was never meant to be restricted to exercising one's vocal cords.