It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Deal would enshrine in law the founding principles of open standards and net neutrality, and protect the web from political interference.
The proposal was presented at the Internet Governance Forum in Lithuania last week, and outlined 12 “principles of internet governance”, including a commitment from countries to sustain the technological foundations that underpin the web’s infrastructure.
The draft law has been likened to the Space Treaty, signed in 1967, which stated that space
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?
Because that's exactly how this bill would be passed right?
I mean, it's not like they can change it, right?
Originally posted by mumma in pyjamas
reply to post by hippomchippo
I don't think it's a "bill" or is exclusively referring to the USA.I thought it was an independent body created to hold governments accountable should they attempt to interfere with the freedom of it's citizens on the internet.There is no 'bill' to be 'passed' , or altered.Any country that does not wish to participate will simply not sign it.
An international treaty is not the same as a bill.
edit on 20-9-2010 by mumma in pyjamas because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The article says that the treaty would forbid government from interfering in free speech online. Why is everyone in this thread acting like it says the opposite?