Governance in the age of Wikileaks — Part 3

Amplify’d from www.tnl.net

If we are to keep the inter­net as a rel­a­tively free speech zone, we need to start defin­ing some lines we are not will­ing to cross. Much has been said about Visa, Mas­ter­card, Ama­zon, Pay­pal, and oth­ers point­ing to the fine print in their con­tract to jus­tify their action when it came to shut­ting down Wik­ileaks. How­ever, what are we to do if we want to pre­vent future wikileaks-type orga­ni­za­tion to suf­fer the same fates. And if we do not, where will we draw the line when it comes to the press?

Some peo­ple may argue that there is a need for more detailed rights spec­i­fy­ing what type of con­tent is legal and so on but I live that to the courts to decide. The idea here is to cre­ate a frame­work that allows for rights to be man­aged in the very long run. The 3 basic rights, along with the con­tention that “no indict­ment, no vio­la­tion” rep­re­sent, at their most basic level, some­thing we should require of any inter­net ser­vice com­pany. Why not ask your providers to sign on to those basic rights: they would cover them legally while pro­vid­ing the great­est pos­si­ble amount of free­dom for any­one to express them­selves on the internet.

Read more at www.tnl.net

 

siteкак определить pr сайта

Governance in the age of Wikileaks — Part 2

Amplify’d from www.tnl.net

But, as any Spi­der­man fol­lower knows, with great power comes great respon­si­bil­ity. So while we do have a right to free expres­sion and a free press, we, as cit­i­zen do not have a right to abuse. And the free­dom of expres­sion does not con­sti­tute a free pass on law­less­ness under the guise of free expression.

Some have claimed that the actions of anony­mous are a form of civil dis­obe­di­ence. My ques­tion here is simple: if the peo­ple behind anony­mous truly believe that their actions con­sti­tute acts of civil dis­obe­di­ence, why are they per­form­ing them anonymously?

A last ques­tion that I would throw into this mix is the one of motives. The veil of anonymity makes it eas­ier to ques­tion the motives of the anony­mous party. If it is fear of pros­e­cu­tion that forces you to hide, then you are not com­mit­ting an act of dis­obe­di­ence: you are only break­ing the law and being a cow­ard. How­ever, if you are hid­ing because your intents are dif­fer­ent, then you are not only break­ing the law but you are using this merely as a cover up for your true intent and that, in itself, should be enough to pros­e­cute you with no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for your side.

Read more at www.tnl.net

 

blc2.ruнаружная реклама википедия