[IRP] Charter Version 1.1 DRAFT

Tapani Tarvainen tapani.tarvainen
Wed Nov 3 11:34:49 EET 2010

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 09:43:45AM +0000, Lisa Horner (LisaH at global-partners.co

> As Dixie's mandate was only to remove errors from the
> text and distinguish more clearly between rights and principles, she
> wasn't able to make too many substantive changes. But, as she
> mentioned, this version is still very much up for discussion.

Right. Apologies if my comment sounded like it was directed
at Dixies work, I appreciate it was just textual editing.

> Regarding your comment on freedom of expression, I don't see what is
> there as contradictory.

You don't see a contradiction when one paragraph says
"there shall be no censorship" and the next
"censorship is OK if..."?

> It's an attempt to define what the boundaries to legal restrictions
> on freedom of expression are on the Internet.

Exactly. But it appears to narrow them down from what's
acceptable outside Internet. And that's what I don't accept.

If the Charter ends up saying that traditional Human Rights
do not really apply to the Internet, that they may be
limited in the Internet as they mustn't elsewhere
because it's technically possible or whatever,
then it'll just make things worse.

> On the other hand, there are situations (albeit limited) in which
> certain rights can be limited.

Of course. I'm not arguing for an absolutist position.
There are old and well-justified limits on Freedom of
Expression as well, from libel to fraud, and they should
apply in the Internet as well as outside it.
But prior censorship cannot be reconciled with FoE,
it is not acceptable in the Internet any better than
outside it, even if it appears technically easier.

(To clarify, I mean censorship as applied to general population -
restrictions on specific individuals in specific situations,
like what you may do while at work or in prison or the like
are another matter.)

> However, the boundaries are being pushed, and illegitimate
> restrictions are being placed on rights.

Yes. That is the very reason I think -- hope -- this Charter may
prove useful.

> Do we want to try and address that through clarifying what is and is
> not acceptable, seeing as the Charter is supposed to be an
> educational resource?

Of course we do. But the starting point should be that
use of Internet must not limit, narrow down existing rights.

Tapani Tarvainen

More information about the IRP mailing list