Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

[disclaimer as before]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 07:41:43PM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote:

>On 14-03-2022 16:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>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.

>My question would then be, is connectivity for you _only_ an economic good?

No, of course not.

>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.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]