Report on UN conference on Internet and racism
[Forwarded with permission, first few grafs deleted by request. --Declan] Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:40:22 -0800 (PST) From: Margarita Lacabe <marga@derechos.org> Subject: UN Conference [The lineup from the conference] -Debra Guzman, a long-time american human rights activist, gave a general appreciation of hate sites online. She said that it was very difficult to find them and unlikely that one would stumble on them. -Teresa Peters, another american from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Information Computer and Communications Policy Committee talked about a study that her organization had made about regulating speech on the internet, and about the problems this lead to. I think the study is not public, and she did not go much beyond what the study concluded. I didn't take good notes on her speech, however :-( -Philip Reitinger, a prosecutor with the US DOJ, summarize US free speech legislation and made clear that hate web sites are protected under US law. He also addressed the likely constitutional protections of anonimity, but left open the question of whether the US could cooperate with other countries in investigating people who violate speech laws abroad. -Timothy Jenkins, who as far as I can tell is mostly a consultant and someone who is trying to get the black leadership interested in the internet, talked about how the real problem here was that internet access is disproportionatelly held by white (males?) in the US and Europe, and how the lack of access to computers might be a form of racial discrimination. He did not agree with censorship of web sites BUT he introduced the issue of anonimity, being for restricting anonimity so as to be able to tell who the authors of racist speech were (this was followed by a strong denunciation by the US delegate and yours truely) -ERic Lee, from the Commercial Internet eXchange, an association of ISPs talked about why ISPs shouldn't be held responsible for content and also gave a good explanation of how the internet works. -Agha Shahi, a member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, gave a forceful opinion on how the Convention applies online and how countries must criminalize hate speech online. -Rudiger Dossow, from the Council of Europe, talked about what the Council has been thinking about the issue and warned about potential pitfalls. -Maya Sooka, from Sangonet in SA, questioned the code of conduct idea that had been proposed several times - Anthony M. Rutkowski, now from Magic, talked about how the internet works, how impossible it is to regulate it, and how it should not be regulated differently from other media. At some point there was a presentation by the Simon Wiesenthal center on hate sites online, and another by the ITU, which I did not quite understand, about how hundreds of satellites are being launched. In addition to the experts, the conference had representatives from some UN and Int'l bodies, including the department of public information, the OHCHR, the ITU, the Internet Society and others who remained mostly silent. There were representatives from several countries, including the US, Sweeden, Germany, France and Cuba. Most representatives were embassy people, but those from Sweeden, france and germany were from different ministries in their countries. These three representatives who were among the most vocal in the conference seemed to be the only ones who were actually aware of the legal issues concerned, as well as to what the internet is :-) The NGOs were badly represented, there was no one from the groups that watch hate speech online (except for the brief appearance of the guy from the simon Wiesenthal center). In addition to the three of us, article 19 - the free speech organization - in England was represented, there was a guy from the World Jewish Conference who was there half the time, a couple of people from this organization for adult education, a professor from the Universtiy of Geneva who spoke a few times, and some assorted people from Geneva based groups who were mostly silent. There was also a guy from Indigienous World Association who missunderstood pretty much everything said, but was very passionate. (to be continued) Margarita Lacabe - Derechos - marga@derechos.org - http://www.derechos.org ____________________________________________________________________________ The governors as well as the governed are bound by the law and by the established system of making, changing and interpreting the law AKA The Rule of Law
At 05:22 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[Forwarded with permission, first few grafs deleted by request. --Declan]
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:40:22 -0800 (PST) From: Margarita Lacabe <marga@derechos.org> Subject: UN Conference
<Much deleted>
There was also a guy from Indigienous World Association who missunderstood pretty much everything said, but was very passionate.
Well, if that isn't a summary of 99% of non-netizens, I don't know what is...
Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode? For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law. Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
At 05:59 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights. However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.
Actually I seem to remember that U.S. citizens have full constitutional protection (only from the U.S. government of course) no matter where they reside, non-citizens have full protection within the borders of the U.S., and non-citizens have partial protection outside the borders of the U.S. I don't remember how much is covered by the last though.
If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online, it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially unconstitutional.
Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the type of analysis I'd pursue.
-Declan
At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode? For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law. Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
-Colin
At 7:54 PM -0700 11/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of another country who are living in that country.
If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.
This is a slam dunk truth. This is black letter law. I'm surprised this is even being debated. "Congress shall make no law.." does not mean that government gets to ban sales and distritution of works by Tolstoy, Zola, Stendahl, Marx, and so on. Get real. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v03102809b0980bf30a9e@[207.167.93.63]>, on 11/18/97 at 08:25 PM, Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:
At 7:54 PM -0700 11/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of another country who are living in that country.
If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.
This is a slam dunk truth. This is black letter law.
I'm surprised this is even being debated.
"Congress shall make no law.." does not mean that government gets to ban sales and distritution of works by Tolstoy, Zola, Stendahl, Marx, and so on.
Get real.
Well you forget Tim that here in the "Land of the Freeh" the Constitution is only a minor incovienance to ObPCVoteBuying by the criminals in DC. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHJxWI9Co1n+aLhhAQGjXQP+LK1j+q0duTha9KoyBJf5A8+Ejjm9UcY9 7KqPU2JCPny/d+goGdN8WxQonf8VHHRaqKLxQsIPDoFxiRBW13HlKvfXtrelsE8l gCKf48+RvZt1IvUvWcisOzrlCa5cUjqnqd+F7HVaxXOKRBqU4O2Dbo8TAS0/Ci8G 9qV/lk6W2Ps= =sozA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights. However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect. If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online, it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially unconstitutional. Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the type of analysis I'd pursue. -Declan At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode? For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law. Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi Dekan, I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use of it). In <v0300780db097ccdea2d8@[168.161.105.216]>, on 11/18/97 at 05:59 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:
My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights. However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.
If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online, it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially unconstitutional.
Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the type of analysis I'd pursue.
-Declan
At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode? For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law. Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
- -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHI5Uo9Co1n+aLhhAQFUcAQAueD75l1KxJ5KW0ADWkUaxjMjtOcn3ttd ptVJVX5fQypBm+3sD/JNv4r9GJh5KJFG7SpktBrwWaYd0PFH9bxfytFSrFsPUcyD UHK/dyyEvHpPlibtlvrEF811AciiL6ee0oSS6NsUFKhGOncKcB662XbjL9+TbWH3 bnLeFYfvtJ4= =SDKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Dekan,
I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use of it).
Interesting. I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to piss in. Constitutional rights are contractual government guarantees to protect well known natural rights. (pleez send all natural rights flames straight to /dev/null since we all know what they are and have different name for them) Because of the kind of animals that we are, natural law has evolved as an emergent philosophical model that protects the right of the individual to do as they please and to profit from the fruits of their labors so long as they harm no one else. I pretty much massacred that definition, but hey, I'm not getting payed for this. How can we provide *services* to non-citizens and call that a right? Who the hell pays for it? Of course you could make the argument that involutarily providing services even for citizens is brain damaged, but we call that socialism and take it up to argue on some other channel than cypherpunks. jim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971118181728.23634B-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on 11/18/97 at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Dekan,
I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use of it).
Interesting. I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to piss in.
Constitutional rights are contractual government guarantees to protect well known natural rights. (pleez send all natural rights flames straight to /dev/null since we all know what they are and have different name for them)
Because of the kind of animals that we are, natural law has evolved as an emergent philosophical model that protects the right of the individual to do as they please and to profit from the fruits of their labors so long as they harm no one else. I pretty much massacred that definition, but hey, I'm not getting payed for this.
How can we provide *services* to non-citizens and call that a right?
Who the hell pays for it?
Of course you could make the argument that involutarily providing services even for citizens is brain damaged, but we call that socialism and take it up to argue on some other channel than cypherpunks.
Oh I agree with you here that there is not constutional right to social services. I wish I had a reference to the court decisions on this. It was a year or two ago regarding one of the balot propositions in California that would cut off various social services to illegal aliens. I am going off memory here but I don't think it ever got all the way to the SC. If anyone has a reference to this case please post. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHJGN49Co1n+aLhhAQHA5AP/aA8EdlyfTUL3Ev/Kbz3rGqtSwcxRB3Gf Hp8kQxXXOOazlGVogPvKM4qaeiwXoYKrTbqv2cdG4S/cKJv2sZ39ZsGb5xaztPiD drezpHo2EJH5iayB5Pytb2EkBg3taTLj5gB33um2Cxq3UEDII/fFc1jCK35kbWYQ NS8HmsWCv84= =xFp8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971118181728.23634B-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on 11/18/97 at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:
Interesting. I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to piss in.
Well I have done some more research on this. Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187 in California. The proposition I mentioned in my last post was Prop 187. I seem to be having some difficulty in finding the actual documents regarding this case and subsequent court rulings (opinions on it I can find by the truckload). I'll keep searching but if anyone has a pointer to where this info can be found it would be appreciated. OK I found Plyler v Doe at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202 I haven't had a chance to read through it yet. It seems that this case is one of the main attacks against Prop 187 which AFAIK is still in the courts. Here is a ruling of the 9th district by Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer: http://128.120.36.171/By-Month/MN-Vol-3-96/Prop_187_Opinion.html Appendix A of this ruling has the text of Prop 187. I still have not been able to find out where this thing is in the court system. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHJpRI9Co1n+aLhhAQEnKAQAwxxik4Ear4xUU68Cy4dziUuf6nFxc8u3 ldSjC62r5okgDWMmfvOyBjp6bTv1Svencxqw+tMUpI6Eek/C1ibcWJP14wmiDEs6 1+Bvw7aS27umtEz6ZDqCMA+YS677uWEXQUjBARbu+pW0MQePe65VfpZbErv2G9IM IfXEjyRaZQI= =KM6s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:
Interesting. I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to piss in.
Well I have done some more research on this.
Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187 in California.
Either the SC has a different definition of "right" than the one I was taught in civics class in 1973, you misread the decision or I have the honor of declaring the SC wrong (again). (I know...how can a lowly citizen like me -- not even a lawyer have the gall do declare this? Because I don't get my opinions from the SC.)
I'll keep searching but if anyone has a pointer to where this info can be found it would be appreciated.
OK I found Plyler v Doe at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202
OK. I'll read this. To tell you the truth I don't hold a lot of hope for the SC. They are the ones that refused to hear the case of the little girls in public school who were repeatedly strip searched by teachers 'cuz they might have been hiding 5 dollars. All the courts up the the SC ruled that the it was just a case of "poor judgement". This reminds me of the Orange County Donald Scott affair, where the prosecuting attorney of OC, after refusing to prosecute the government agents involved, said they "lost their moral compass". Of course, after having said this, the prosecuting attorney did not allude to where the agents involved could go to find their moral compass. I'm sure some citizen units have an idea.
It seems that this case is one of the main attacks against Prop 187 which AFAIK is still in the courts.
I thought this was recently ruled on by our friends in the SC and Prop 187 was found constitutional. Pretty screwy if you ask me, but the court system doesn't have to make sense. Since court decisions seem based on case law and not any semblance of morality(?) or constitutional contractual obligation judges seem free to find the exact bit of case law that defends their decisions. Much like some sort of perverse argument between fundamentalists each basing their reasons on selected excerpts from the bible. If you have ever had the priveledge to witness this kind of battle of the mentally unarmed, you know what I mean. Then again sometimes a judge just pleasantly suprises the hell out of me. go figure... jim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971119103908.23634C-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on 11/19/97 at 10:55 AM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:
Pretty screwy if you ask me, but the court system doesn't have to make sense. Since court decisions seem based on case law and not any semblance of morality(?) or constitutional contractual obligation judges seem free to find the exact bit of case law that defends their decisions.
Reminds me of an old Sci-Fi story where in the future all the courtrooms were computerized. The two opposing lawers would submit disks containing case law to the computer. One lawer would present one case and the opposing lawer would present a case that over ruled it. This would go back and forth until one of the lawers presented a case that could not be over ruled by the other. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHPC849Co1n+aLhhAQFeCgP6AhOyIQAaKHhA8k06Hij5IB831wX4Krjs 55O1khAB4oWaAObHlOhY10Og0qVVMfNfAVUWTlTElYJYaxE1svPV1QVu8fJ31dm4 uPnMms6JTSOBzEAES4vVC/YQBoQ4cMnE0iTkaod6C49EHUEMrfy2dhrBiRMqy9hZ ftCwFfrHfKw= =n69n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Interesting. I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to piss in. Well I have done some more research on this. Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187 in California.
The 2 problems I have are (1) Citizen implies that one is a member of a political division such as a state at some level. If you want to live in a free world you have to give up citizenship as a requirement for anything. and (2) Education, of ANYONE, properly carried out will generate more of value FOR society than not educating, and one could with very little intellect see how NOT educating people costs society. As to wether the state should provide financial support for schools, well that is another matter.
At 5:51 PM -0800 11/18/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Oh I agree with you here that there is not constutional right to social services. I wish I had a reference to the court decisions on this. It was a year or two ago regarding one of the balot propositions in California that would cut off various social services to illegal aliens. I am going off memory here but I don't think it ever got all the way to the SC. If anyone has a reference to this case please post.
It is still grinding thru the courts. Governor Pete Wilson is still pushing the cut off. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | One party wants to control | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | what you do in the bedroom,| 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | the other in the boardroom.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of another country who are living in that country. If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country. -Declan At 16:38 -0800 11/18/97, Colin A. Reed wrote:
At 05:59 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights. However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.
Actually I seem to remember that U.S. citizens have full constitutional protection (only from the U.S. government of course) no matter where they reside, non-citizens have full protection within the borders of the U.S., and non-citizens have partial protection outside the borders of the U.S. I don't remember how much is covered by the last though.
If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online, it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially unconstitutional.
Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the type of analysis I'd pursue.
-Declan
At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode? For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law. Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
-Colin
Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of another country who are living in that country.
If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country. But would the goverment under existing law have a right to force
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: the publisher to disclose the real identity of the one who wrote the inflamatory message to a foreign goverment? Does the application of bilateral treaties the United States has with other countries require dual criminality i.e. child pornography, piracy, fraud etc? Most speech that would be considered hate speech in Europe would not meet the prerequirement of dual criminality.
At 8:14 PM -0700 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of another country who are living in that country.
If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country. But would the goverment under existing law have a right to force the publisher to disclose the real identity of the one who wrote the inflamatory message to a foreign goverment?
No, "Congress shall make no law..." means, in most cases (*), that bookstores, publishers, distributors, etc., cannot be compelled to request permission about whom they may sell things to, may not be compelled to require certificates of permission to sell material, etc. So, getting back to the "can a law be passed against foreigners using U.S. sites?" issue, this misses the real point. The chokepoint, or point of control, is not enforcing U.S. laws against Germans, or Kuwaitis, or Botswanans...it is, rather, at the bookstore, point of distribution, ISP, publisher, etc. And it is clear that the U.S. government (and by extension, the states) cannot compel a publisher, distributor, ISP, bookstore, etc., to screen purchasers, to require a license to read, etc. (* The exceptions being for obscenity, espionage, and the usual things. I don't agree with these exceptions, but these are the oft-debated impingements on the First.)
Most speech that would be considered hate speech in Europe would not meet the prerequirement of dual criminality.
None of it would. We in America are perfectly free to call for the killing of all niggers, the expulsion of gypsies, and the truth about the Holocaust myth. (Not taht I personally believe in any of these examples.) Too bad other countries place civil order above basic liberty. It's time to "Just Say No" to the U.N. The John Birch Society makes more sense every day. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 07:39 AM 11/19/1997 -0600, Tim McVeigh wrote:
Duncan Frissell wrote:
US out of the UN and UN out of the US.
Nah - somebody needs to stay and corrupt the UN :-) (As if George Bush hadn't demonstrated that it's clearly been bought, if not necessarily paid for...) Besides, it's obvious that Bureaucrats are a different race, superior to their subjects, and that the proposed UN document is merely hate speech indicating their right to control the inferior beings who don't have the decency to comply with the needs of public order and public morals. Putting the document on a European web site obviously violates the laws it requires its fellow Burons to impose on their Peons, but here in America we're still free to publish such tripe... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 8:29 AM -0800 1/19/90, Jonathan Gaw wrote:
I could imagine numerous scenarios where ISPs would prefer the telephone company analogy of being a passive carrier, as opposed to the publisher model. can they have it both ways?
Bookstores. See *Cubby vs. CompuServe*. -- Morning people may be respected, but night people are feared.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v03007808b097c592eba8@[168.161.105.216]>, on 11/18/97 at 05:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:
-Agha Shahi, a member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, gave a forceful opinion on how the Convention applies online and how countries must criminalize hate speech online.
Agha Shahi is a Statest Pig (As are most UN memebers). Below is a list of who is on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: M J Yutzis *Argentina Hamzat Ahmadu *Nigeria Ivan Garvalov Bulgaria Andrew Chigovera *Zimbabwe Songu Shuhua *China Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr *Egypt Valencia Rodriguez Ecuador Michael P Banton *UK Shanti Sadiq Ali *India Carlos L Hevia *Cuba T Van Boven Netherlands Agha Shahi *Pakistan E Ferrero Costa Peru Ion Diaconu *Romania Michael E Sherifis Cyprus Regis de Gouttes France Yuri A Rechetov Russian Fed. Rudiger Wolfram *Germany * Countries that have not ratified Article 14 allowing complaints from their own citizens to the Committee. Members of the CERD Committee are elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by countries which have ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. NOTE: This information is a couple of years old so there may have been recent changes to the make-up of CERD. Would you really trust any of these countries on a "freedom of speech" issue? These are a bunch of statist pigs from irrelevant 3rd world countries wishing to subvert democracy and freedom through UN charters. Notice that most of these members woun't even be bothered with the pretence of listening to their own citizens. The UN is a plague on humanity. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHI33I9Co1n+aLhhAQE/yAP/fzLEFqiU2G2MqeDBhtF8SUfa++xq9GJr xUqedn/62Q+DJbjSKXqyPCzhhWY3d8w0tuxL8HZqiR1KGvBbwYSYP7WHMWKBVm0G ubpY0wU1+E7W8fgOZ81C/7J6p4J+DmLPs+biZFC1X8mNomT+Kz1zZzv5xFoLTII9 6DbgjpaagzE= =+6Kl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (13)
-
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
Colin A. Reed -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto -
Jim Burnes -
Lizard -
Peter Herngaard -
snow -
Tim May -
Tim McVeigh -
William H. Geiger III