[Chapter-delegates] China's remarks to the UN Human Rights Council panel on freedom of expression and the Internet

[Carlos Martinez Cagnazzo]

I agree (and I think everyone does) that for every right there are 
duties and responsibilities. However, in the case of FoE here it is 
being argued that filtering and censoring are *acceptable* ways of 
dealing with and enforcing such duties. This is where our vision and 
China's (and cohorts) crash.

There are instances such as civil courts that have been dealing with 
libel cases for hundreds of years. Maybe what the Internet needs is a 
trans-national version of a civil court, but it *definitely does not 
need* filtering and censoring.

With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to see where all this is coming 
from. Every government which harbors some doubts about its support base 
must at this point be quite concerned about what happened with the Arab 
Spring.

Sadly some Western governments have not helped. Regardless of 
motivation, proposals like SOPA and mandatory filtering based on the 
'please think of the children' pseudo-argument sound scarily similar to 
what the Chinese govmt & friends would like to see on the Internet.

BTW I'm quite dissapointed, but hardly surprised, of seeing some Latin 
American countries listed there. We can definitely do better than that.

regards

Carlos

On 3/2/12 9:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>
>>
>> So this means "filter out dissent (because dissent=criminality according to the cited behaviours) but not copyright violations"?
>>
>> Does anybody know what provisions to modify "freedom of expression" are justifiable under "art. 19, 20 of ICCPR and article 4 of ICESR" ? Presumably this is being cited to justify filtering and other measures. Are these drafted in such a way as to provide space to link dissent to general criminality in the way described?
> Article 19 of ICCPR
>
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
>
> 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
> shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
> of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
> print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
>
> 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this
> article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may
> therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
> such as are provided by law and are necessary:
>
>     (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
>
>     (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
>     public), or of public health or morals.
>
> Article 20 of ICCPR
>
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
>
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
> incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited
> by law.
>
> Article 4 of ICESR
>
> The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the
> enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with
> the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such
> limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be
> compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of
> promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.
>
>
> Interesting revervations to the treaty:
>
> The Netherlands:
>        Article 19, paragraph 2
>
>        The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provision with the
>        proviso that it shall not prevent the Kingdom from requiring the
>        licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. "
>
>        Article 20, paragraph 1
>
>        "The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the obligation set
>        out in this provision in the case of the Netherlands."
>
>
> Switzerland:
>         Switzerland reserves the right not to adopt further measures
>         to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20,
>         paragraph 1.
>
> Ireland:
>         Ireland accepts the principle in paragraph 1 of article 20 and
>         implements it as far as it is practicable. Having regard to
>         the difficulties in formulating a specific offence capable of
>         adjudication at a national level in such a form as to reflect
>         the general principles of law recognised by the community of
>         nations as well as the right to freedom of expression, Ireland
>         reserves the right to postpone consideration of the possibility
>         of introducing some legislative addition to, or variation of,
>         existing law until such time as it may consider that such is
>         necessary for the attainment of the objective of paragraph 1 of
>         article 20.
>
> US:
>         That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or
>         other action by the United States that would restrict the right
>         of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and
>         laws of the United States.
>
> and I think a pretty important declaration:
>
>         For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides
>         that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may
>         not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes
>         them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article
>         19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the
>         freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will
>         continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its
>         Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations.
>
> This seems to me to be very important in this context.
>
> //Marcin
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates