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.

 

UN Joint Statement on Wikileaks and the Right To Freedom Of Expression, including the Internet.

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression have made a joint statement regarding these issues.

www.cidh.oas.org...



December 21, 2010 – In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments


The list of legal principles referred to, is found in the full statement on the link above. Items 4 & 5 are particularly relevant to the freedom of the internet.


edit on 24-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


So what do you make of it. I read points 4 and 5 and they seemed to imply the web should remain free from any government interference which would be a good thing? Maybe I am missing something,

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Apologies to mods - this is in the wrong forum...I'd appreciate it if you could move it. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by wcitizen
 


So what do you make of it. I read points 4 and 5 and they seemed to imply the web should remain free from any government interference which would be a good thing? Maybe I am missing something,

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.



Yes, me too. The statement makes it clear that censorship of the internet, except for a very narrow band of possible exceptions, is an infringement on freedom of expression.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
it's nice to see some supporting news about Internet neutrality.
second liner.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Yeh but the US government aren`t included cos they`re above the law.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
Yeh but the US government aren`t included cos they`re above the law.


true but when you have collections of geeks and people like anon, there will always be an "out", or a work around. through necessity comes innovation.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Corporations are just as big a threat to net neutrality and this:


Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.


probably doesn't include a tiered internet pricing system.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by wcitizen
 


So what do you make of it. I read points 4 and 5 and they seemed to imply the web should remain free from any government interference which would be a good thing? Maybe I am missing something,

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.



Yes, me too. The statement makes it clear that censorship of the internet, except for a very narrow band of possible exceptions, is an infringement on freedom of expression.


This is exactly how they create loopholes in seemingly airtight regulations..




Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds


a matter of national security (wikileaks) is NOT a political reason.

What is a matter of national security? That's up to the laws of the country doing the censoring. In the case of the USA, it can mean political dissent, or anything else that labels a website as supporting terror (both domestic and international). I guess i dont have to tell you Americans how far reaching the terrorist labels go by now in your country, and this is just 1 example.

If they're creative enough they will most likely be able to restrict practically every website.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I take your point, but I don't totally agree...they also said that the criteria for keeping something secret should be very clear and 'narrow'. Of course, there are some things which would endanger lives if they were made public, but the statement also said that the danger of exposing it had to be considered against the public right to know.

You're right, any chink will be abused, and in fact, even without a chink it would be ignored if the cabal see fit, but neverthess, I'm glad the UN has made such a statement, it adds weight to the legal argument against censorship and gives a good reference point for those arguing for freedom of speech.

As to whether WL is national security or political, my own view is that it is the latter and that it is the government itself which is the greatest risk to national security.
edit on 24-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
UN making a statement about this at least shows it's high on the agenda, which can be both good and bad.

Let's see where it takes us, but i'm afraid this (in time) will turn into one of the main tools in actually restricting free speech instead of keeping it. (might be the NWO behind every tree talking though)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The UN will support something like this until info pertaining to the UN or the way its managed is released, then they will change their tune. People can call the US corrupt all they want, but when compared to the UN, we are angels compared to there management.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join