[IRP] [Expression] [governance] Declaration of Internet Rights by 15 Chinese intellectuals

[Sami Ben Gharbia]

China?s Internet: Two Media
Declarations<http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/10/15/china?s-internet-two-media-declarations/>
-- 
Best regards,

Sami Ben Gharbia | ???? ?? ??????
advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org

NL: +31-630319419 | Blog: www.kitab.nl
Gtalk: samibengharbia | Skype: samibeng
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ifikra

nawaat.org | cybversion.org





On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/09, Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/10/happy-internet-human-rights-day.html
> >
> > *Internet Human Rights Declaration
> > Issued by 15 Chinese Intellectuals*
> >
> [snip]> 7. Netizens? freedom of speech encompasses a right to express
> themselves
> > anonymously. Anonymity enables some authors to express their opinions in
> > ways that best suit their needs. This legal right should be respected as
> > long as an anonymous author is expressing his views in accordance with
> legal
> > and constitutional requirements.
>
>
> I am a party to internet discussions among top election law scholars,
> lawyers and professors with a concentration in the United States but
> with worldwide participation.  What I'm about to say is not a
> prediction but an accurate characterization of what is actually
> happening right now, which seizes upon principle 7 above and attempts
> to expand it in a way that I believe is highly damaging to democracy,
> namely:
>
> Taking arguments and precedents from anonymous internet speech cases,
> which there have been a good handful recently upholding anonymity even
> in cases of defamatory speech posted on the web, scholars and lawyers
> sympathetic to and working for wealthy sponsors are arguing that they
> must have the right to contribute to political campaigns anonymously,
> without anybody ever finding out who is behind the political campaign.
>  This takes the anonymous speech/whistleblower protections envisioned
> above and harnesses it as a force AGAINST transparency and
> accountability.
>
> Because the people, the voters, are the sovereign entity (like a king
> is the sovereign in royalty) when they are voting, this idea is
> equivalent to asserting that people could appear in front of the king
> and the king would have no right to know who is advising them/lobbying
> them or "whispering in the king's ear" as it were.  Obviously, if the
> people are the sole source of political legitimacy or ultimate power,
> in this specific context, UNLIKE the context of web-posted internet
> speech, the sovereign voters should clearly have the right to know and
> evaluate who is talking to them. If they don't have that right and
> power, they aren't really being treated as the sovereign they're
> entitled to be.
>
> I don't see any problem with the principle #7 regarding anonymous
> speech if the scope of that anonymous speech is restricted.  But I
> wonder if that principle can be kept within a reasonable scope.  It
> can be if everyone remembers that elections are extraordinarily unique
> and that every voter wears a different "hat" -- the sovereign hat of
> the voter, as opposed to the normal hat in non-voting situations of
> being a subject of the law, having to obey it whether we know what it
> is, or not.  But since the fundamental distinction between people
> acting as voters and when they act as normal citizens is all too often
> forgotton, underplayed or ignored, I do have concerns that this
> principle would be seized upon and then spill over into areas into
> which it doesn't apply.
>
> Actually, I don't have "concerns" about that, it's really happening.
> I'm making an observation.
>
> This observation reminds of the aphorism that one ought not to act
> unless the principle of that action is something the actor would wish
> to become a universal law.
>
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box #1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s
>
> To be removed from this list send an email to
> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you
> will be removed.
>
> Or - click on this:
> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To change your options:
> %(user_optionsurl)s
>
> Expression mailing list
> Expression at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091015/35b80d1a/attachment-0001.htm>