[Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

[Khaled KOUBAA]

Le 25/04/2011 22:05, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit :
> Khaled,
>
> human-rights legislation specialists would have a lot to say about
> this and I think you need to involve them. 
The campaign will be targeting them :)
> They will add lots of precision by speaking of third- or
> fourth-generation rights, positive and negative rights,
> responsibilities of the state and government (and responsibilities and
> possible liabilities of other actors - think ISPs.)
>
> There are basic questions here: what is exactly the right you would be
> creating? Define it not only by the positive ("right to access the
> Internet") but also in the negative. That gets more fun: "no one
> (citizen? inhabitant? resident? these definitions are key - what
> happens with children, prisoners, foreigners?) can be deprived of
> access to the Internet" - for any motive?
I like this idea.
>
> What are the implications? money-wise, for example, is this a right
> that is going to be suventioned by the government? for all, for a few,
> how do you make the cutoff? The Finland program is pretty clear (and
> still has a fuzzy edge.)
Next step that I am looking to convince the gov of is a National
Broadband Plan such the Estonia one.
> In case someone deprives you from access what happens? who is subject
> to penalties? If a hotel network is down, does the owner go to jail?
This a law issue and not constitution issue.  But yes. ISPs in Egypt cut
down access because they were afraid to loose the license, and there was
nothing that will help him to argue any refusal to the Government order
to take down Internet. With such "constitutional power", no government
will be able to order such decision because it will be a non
constitutional decision.
>
> I hope this is useful in writing both the proposed legislation and all
> of its adjuncts. Glad to go further in depth or extent or into debate
> if I can be useful.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  . 
> .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732
>
> * Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> * LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> * Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> * Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>
> * Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
> *Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
> .  .  .
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:48:31 +0100
>> From: Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa at gmail.com>
>> To: Fred Baker <fredbakersba at gmail.com>
>> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>
>