Freedom of speech

[Lina]

Can anyone define that term?

[BenCA]

the term is defined in ukraine.com policy

[Lina]

I do know the rules and I try to follow them the best I can. The rules are created to give this place a little dignity, and I agree with that. But I do not want to discuss the policy of the board!

I just consider the freedom of speech to be all opposite to the rules...

which is a message, information ,data...contest that is unlawful, harmful, threatning, abbusive, harrassing, tortious, defamantory, vulgar, obsene, invasive of another's privacy, hatefull, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable....as well as all the nice stuff you can think off!

The limits on the "freedom" part are put by the law and social opinion, culture, religion, the level of personal obnoxiousness! I think! I also think that the true freedom (accordding to my deffinition)of speech would sound kinda scary!

The point is...
I'm not American, that's why I'm asking do I understand the consept right? Cause the policy of the board, does not sound like a freedom to me, and I do not think it intended to. It's just a set of rules! Or is it a true American understanding of freedom of speech, as long as it does not cross any lines?

[Nonson]

Lina,


"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."


Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 (emphasis added)


For the first time since this 1948 proclamation of the international human right to freedom of expression, the citizens of the world have the ability to exercise that right on a truly global basis, "regardless of frontiers." With the advent of the Internet, methods of accessing and disseminating information have been fundamentally changed, with profound implications for individuals, civil society and governments.

Like no medium before it, the Internet permits any individual with a computer and a gateway to the Internet to communicate instantaneously with others worldwide. The Internet offers educational institutions, businesses, and non-profit organizations an opportunity to exchange ideas and promote scientific, cultural, and economic progress. Traditional forms of media can greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. The Internet is global in its reach. To a degree that no other technology can, it transcends national borders and eliminates barriers to the free flow of information.

These unique features of this new technology, if properly supported, can foster the freedom of expression essential to democratic rule and civil society in ways previously impossible.

Governments, however, have already begun to impose controls on the Internet, threatening the potential of this new medium. Some governments have enacted laws prohibiting certain content on the Internet and have sought to prosecute users and service providers. Others have tried to control access, by insisting on the installation of national "proxy servers" and requiring the blocking of targeted web sites. And in other countries, governments have encouraged forms of "self-regulation" that are in fact intended to enlist service providers to control the behavior of their customers. [1]

An increasingly well-established body of international law protects the right to freedom of expression. As we shall see, various human rights instruments are diluted by exceptions and may be difficult to enforce. Moreover, not all countries are parties to a binding human rights agreement. But international human rights law undoubtedly has advanced the cause of free expression and undoubtedly applies to the Internet and other digital media. Given the broad language of international and regional human rights documents, there is no doubt that government measures to control the Internet are subject to challenge under international law.

The purpose of this report is to lay the groundwork for the proposition that the unique qualities of the Internet support an even more robust application of international free expression principles to online communications. The technology itself both demands and can support fuller protection of free expression: The borderless nature of the Internet requires that the phrase "regardless of frontiers," which appears in the key international human rights instruments, be applied with a fresh eye. The concept of a right to "impart" information takes on new meaning when anyone can be a publisher. Since censorship in one country may constitute a direct infringement on the right of persons in other countries to "impart" information "without regard to frontiers," the traditional deference given to local norms should be less relevant to the Internet.

The decentralized nature of the Internet makes government controls less effective (even futile), because Internet users have numerous ways of circumventing them. At the same time, the user-controlled nature of the technology means that government controls are less necessary in some contexts. Furthermore, given the essentially unlimited capacity of the Internet, there is less need for government intervention to ensure fairness or balance or to protect reputation. On the Internet, the marketplace of ideas can function with less regulation since good ideas can always achieve the space they deserve. Mistakes can be corrected and the right of reply can be effectuated instantaneously. Under international law, necessity, proportionality, and efficacy are key concepts in judging the validity of restrictions on freedom of expression. If government regulation of content on the Internet is not likely to succeed and not necessary, then it becomes less supportable under international rules.

This paper is merely a beginning, intended to spark further action. A closer examination of the caselaw of the international tribunals is required. A fuller effort is needed to educate judges of the international tribunals, staff of the human rights commissions, and policymakers at international bodies on the unique elements of the Internet and the special significance of user control. Ultimately, free expression cases involving the Internet will be brought before the international human rights tribunals. With further development of the principles outlined here, the Internet could serve as a fulcrum for the expansion of free expression principles.

This report is addressed both to governments and to Internet activists. To governments, it says, "Don't try to censor the Internet because your efforts may well violate international human rights law, especially given the unique nature of the Internet." To activists, the paper says, "Consider how to use international human rights documents to challenge Internet censorship. Here are some arguments why the Internet is entitled to even greater protection that other media."

(www.gilc.org/speech/report)


Nonson
04.01.01

[Pierogies_4_Life]

Mr.Nonson another pointless reply by you. Maybe after all you will win the "BROWN NOSE AWARD OF THE YEAR". Ever heard of limits on the amount of things you could say? You can't go outside and start saying what you want, you got to have respect. Because if you don't the police will throw you into jail for improper use of language and disturbing of peace. Some of the limits are, you shouldn't be poking fun at people of different, races, creeds, ethnic groups, nationalities. You shouldn't be prejudging a person because of their nationality, creed, religion, ethnic background or race.

There are limits to how far you can go. And you have stepped over those limits. Personally if Irena never said that the Russian sailors aboard the Kursk deserved to die for some stupid conflict which has been over for 6 months. I would not care. But since she stated that and now was defacing moral christian values. Than it's my business and my right to do so. I have a right to speak out against people like you Nonson. People who are just simply cowards and cannot own up to it that they are wrong! People like Irena who think people dying will justify anything.

I think on these cases both of you's are sick in the head.

[Lina]

I do not want this topic to be turned into a battlefield, there are plenty of those already! I' m just asking people to define the term, or their opinion!
I'm not asking to turn it into another thread full of personal offences! People, please be more mature!

I hope that the next person, it was addressed to is not going to continue the attack! Someone has to be smarter!

[Nonson]

Lina,

My effort was to shed light on the problem from an international private/legal perspective. Afterall, the law has been around for more than half-a-century, and the general observances of its tenets is thousands of years old.

Nowhere in civilized societies is the presenting of facts viewed as a violation of the acceptable codes of conduct one normally expects from the citizens of those environs. It is only in the corrupt states that facts are seen as violations of some tyrannical law. When we are no longer permitted to deal in facts we are no longer free beings.

I agree. Someone does, indeed, need to be smarter.

Nonson
04.01.01