[Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

[Fred Baker]

On Apr 25, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Philippe Batreau wrote:

> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says :
> 
> Article 19.
> 
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
> right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
> seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
> regardless of frontiers.

Sounds in concert with what I suggested.




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Baker <FredBakerSBA at gmail.com>
> Date: April 25, 2011 12:18:18 PM PDT
> To: Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa at gmail.com>
> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution
> 
> 
> On Apr 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> We in the Internet Society Tunisia are working with other partners on a campaign to introduce the "Right to access to the network" as a constitutional right to be added to the new constitution.
> 
> My personal opinion - "the right to access the network" is a special case of what I think you really want, and is worded in such a way that could be very unfortunate. 
> 
> Taking the second point first, in television, if I were to say that you have the right to access the TV signal, that would imply that you could receive entertainment or propaganda, but would not necessarily have the right to transmit a signal. I can think of a lot of telecommunication networks (google the phrase "walled garden") that would be very happy to grant you the right to access their content using their network, but not give you the right to generate content.
> 
> I think that what you're really looking for is a 21st-century statement of the US first amendment, which is the right to "speak" freely, with the most general possible definition of "to speak". I might state it as the "right to exchange any information with any consenting party on any topic using any communication medium".
> 
> Note that the statement of the right does not require the information exchanged to be true or lawful; the issue the US first amendment addressed was an environment in which political statements were often unlawful and of debatable validity. The important thing is not that your statement be correct; it is that you have the right to make it. Note that there is no implied right to lack of consequences - You have the right to make slanderous and libelous statements, and the party they are made about has the right to seek redress.
> 
> The word that I myself might debate in the statement above is "consenting" - I didn't have it in the first version of the statement. I added it because I don't think that a spammer or DDOSer should have the right to attack me; both I and my email providers will argue that in general abusive communications should not be protected. But "abusive" is also in the eyes of the beholder; I can imagine issues here. Maybe that comes under the same rubric as slander and libel; you have the right to send the traffic and I have the right to prevent it from reaching me.
> 
> I would suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for a review of the US First Amendment and the issues related to it.
> 
>> We appreciate any feedback and help from your side if you can share with us other experience that you heard about or any country who is implementing such rules in their constitution.
>> Many thanks,
>> Khaled KOUBAA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>