[Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

[Khaled KOUBAA]

All,
Thank you for your helpful thinking.
The Article 8 of our old constitution already granted the freedom of
expression but this has not prevented the old regime to abuse it.
But here is not our goal, and this is issue has already the support of
everyone here.
I don't want to compare Internet to TV/Radio or others. It has for sure
not the same influence on our society nor our future.
We think that the right to access the network ( we still not agree on
right wording in Arabic for it ) should be granted regardless to what
will using for : to express ourself, to educate, health,
entrepreneurship, .... or even may be spamming or DDoSing. But even if
he will spam people, before doing it, he as every citizen has the right
to access to the network. We can't censor him because we think that he
may one day do illegal things with the network.
The real rational behind that is that policy and regulations that will
be than built up on this "Constitutional Right" will be with a unique
"User Centric" focus.
Khaled

> 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
>