[IRP] Blocking and filtering text

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:21:05PM +0000, Dixie Hawtin (Dixie at global-partners.c

> From my current understanding what we are moving towards is this:
> NB I'm not proposing this wording, just trying to outline everything
> that needs to be included:

>         All mandatory filtering and blocking is in breach of Article
> 19. Filtering

I'm not sure I want to say that: filtering based on purely technical
needs could be mandatory, at least ISPs should be able to enforce it.

> All voluntary filtering and blocking is also in breach of Article
>          19, with two exceptions:

>         1. Where filtering and blocking is governed by technical
> rules (rather than message contents) and is aimed at providing a
> service (for example preventing spam, viruses and malware) it is not
> a violation of Article 19, provided it is voluntary, and users are
> allowed to bypass such blocks and filters.
>
>         2. Voluntary filters and blocking which are used by end users.

Hmm. Actually I don't think *any* truly voluntary filtering
would breach Article 19... which I guess you end up with
the above, even though in rather roundabout way.

How about something like this:

"Blocking and filtering as tools and services should be
promoted and made vailable for users to use as they choose.
No blocking or filtering should be made mandatory or enforced
beyond what is strictly necessary to ensure the technical
functioning of the net."

That leaves room for things like blocking excessive amounts
of data or rejecting standard-violating messages, but
leaves all content-based filtering voluntary.

******

> With regards to freedom from religion, I think we need to be
> careful with wording here, this is one of the most explosive rights.

Yes. Indeed it is something that is very hard if not impossible
to define well.

> Are you saying that people have the right to ignore all rules which
> are based on beliefs?

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention
utterly impossible in practice (anarchists to the
contrary notwithstanding).

But today the rules should not explicitly favour any religion(s),
their current justification should be at least apparently
agnostic, and in particular religious motives should not
change the legality of any act.

If we allow, say, restrictions on Freedom of Expression
on religious grounds we'll have to either give everybody veto
rights on it or decide which (few) religions should have
that privilege.

> It shouldn't be that if a rule comes from religion it
> is invalid, whereas if it doesn't it is valid. The question about
> whether it a rule is valid law is surely to do with the contents of
> the rule (and whether the contents is compatible with human rights).

That parenthetical statement is the key, I think.

Actually all I really wanted to say here is that religious reasons
cannot, must not override or limit any human rights.

How or if that should be said in the Charter, I'm not sure.
But I want to avoid language that seems to imply otherwise,
as the draft 1.0 text seemed to do.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen