Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Jens Finkhaeuser <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

------- Original Message -------

> > > It is not reasonable in my opinion to claim such filters are
> > > 

> > > "self-defense", at least in the network sense. They are, rather, an
> > > 

> > > attempt to use one economic good (connectivity) to cause other kinds
> > > 

> > > of political change.
> > 

> > A-ha! Here we might have found a root of some miscommunication. You see connectivity as economic good. I through we were talking about connectivity as the ability of people to exercise article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR, in other words, to communicate.
> 

> I think I'd rather say that in this context it is being handled as an economic good, because that's what economic sanctions regimes are about. That's why it was called "the economic weapon" in the first place.

That's fair, and understandable. I was viewing connectivity as more in line with Niels' interpretation as related to UDHR 19.

> > rights are indivisible, unalienable, and interrelated. And any limitation on human rights should be proportionate. So here we would need to take into account the whole impact of the actions within scope.
> 

> Yes, that was the point of the rest of the analysis I offered, which among other things argued that either the sanctions could be catastrophic for the Internet to be effective, or could be proportionate but ineffective.

But I think that is exactly the point that the paper makes. It just goes on to actually support those proportionate measures.

Bill's last reply and my reading of the paper suggests that the main point here is to create a defensible position for network operators against too much filtering: they can hardly be accused of doing nothing if they filter something. And if the filters are created carefully by a multi-stakeholder organization in full consideration of their impact on human rights, calls for stricter measures automatically cast a bad light on the party doing the calling - and network operators may use that in the Internet's favour.

I do - maybe naively - see value in this.

At this point it seems I am starting to repeat myself, however, and I don't want to impose that on anyone - so don't be surprised if I reply less.

Jens