Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9

From: Sandra Braman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 06:09:37 +0800

I am now with Alp on "legally withheld" as the best language here.

In the introduction, censorship could be mentioned as an example of the
types of content that may be withheld in this way, along with some others.

Sandra

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:00 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>         [email-masked]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [email-masked]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [email-masked]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: re use of word censorship (Alp Toker)
>    2. Re: re RFC 8280 ([email-masked])
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alp Toker <[email-masked]>
> To: Avri <[email-masked]>, Sandra Braman <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Hrpc <[email-masked]>
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:38:09 +0800
> Subject: Re: [hrpc] re use of word censorship
> +1
>
> The term "legally withheld content" has served us well and has clearer
> semantics than "censored" in the general case.
>
> That said, it seems reasonable to mention censorship somewhere in the
> introduction if only as a search keyword and nod to the origin of the
> 451 code.
>
> A.
>
>
>
> On 14/11/2017 14:24, Avri wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > Very much appreciate the comment that lead to a de-politization of the
> > docs in order to have them talk about the classes of problem as opposed
> > to just a specific political  issues.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 14, 2017 at 01:46, <Sandra Braman <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I appreciate your thoughts here, Hernâni.  The definition you are
> >> relying is still off in the political zone, though. Are you suggesting
> >> that stopping financial fraud should be considered censorship?
> >> Preventing people from sharing private information publicly without
> >> the subject of the information's permission?  Taking down information
> >> that is in violation of intellectual property rights law -- if and
> >> once actual guilt has been determined (irrespective of your position
> >> on whether or not there should be intellectual property rights in the
> >> first place)?
> >>
> >> Censorship is absolutely real and to be fought. But my comments here
> >> are not about which kind of government is engaged in the activity.
> >> (And let's just say that current developments in the US raise
> >> questions about how such distinctions can even be meaningfully drawn
> >> today; the chilling effect there is growing increasingly and very
> >> depressingly strong . . . . )  It is simply pointing out that IN
> >> ADDITION to censorship there are legal and regulatory reasons why
> >> governments restrict the publication of certain types of information,
> >> many of them for reasons that most in society would support. Fraud may
> >> be the easiest case here, as except for those who are financially
> >> benefitting from fraud this is not something that is generally
> defended.
> >>
> >> This text covers censorship but it also covers many additional types
> >> of restrictions on speech, as if there are no meaningful distinctions
> >> among them. There is an enormous scholarly literature -- and an awful
> >> lot of court opinions (which in the US must include justifications for
> >> decisions taken) -- on the very important distinctions that we make
> >> and that every government, of whatever type, puts into practice. There
> >> are other crimes and torts in addition to censorship that may be
> >> behind the removal or blockage of information, and as Internet users
> >> we would want to know about all of them.
> >>
> >> Some of the early documents in the RFC series, actually, are not
> >> available for what turned out to be (were claimed to be) intellectual
> >> property rights reasons, by the way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>
> >>     From: "Hernâni Marques (p≡p foundation)"
> >>     <[email-masked]>
> >>     To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> >>     Cc:
> >>     Bcc:
> >>     Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:33:16 +0100
> >>     Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments on code 451 document
> >>     On 13.11.2017 17:09, Sandra Braman wrote:
> >>
> >>     > Folks --
> >>
> >>     Hello Sandra
> >>
> >>     > /"Censorship"/
> >>     >
> >>     > / /
> >>     >
> >>     > There are two problems with use of the word "censorship" for the
> >>     actions
> >>     > to which this code should refer.
> >>
> >>     I disagree on not using this word as this would bring up the
> >>     danger that
> >>     we engange in euphemisms for "good" censorship, thus legitimating
> it.
> >>
> >>     > / /
> >>     >
> >>     > First, the word has a very negative connotation, usually avoided
> >>     even by
> >>     > those governments that actually engage in it but prefer to use
> >>     > terminology that refers to things like protecting the population
> >>     from
> >>     > harm, etc.
> >>
> >>     That doesn't change anything to the fact that information is being
> >>     suppressed.
> >>
> >>     > Second, the word censorship refers to government prevention of the
> >>     > communication of material dealing with opinions and beliefs that
> the
> >>     > government considers unacceptable. There is lots of other
> >>     content online
> >>     > that an entity may be blocking or want to block, including that
> >>     > involving fraud, false advertising, personal data, obscenity,
> >>     and, in
> >>     > many societies, hate speech.
> >>
> >>     You're referring to political censorship specifically. Censorship in
> >>     general refers is the suppression of information -- despite the
> >>     intention, culture, legal reasons or effects.
> >>     > For both of these reasons, I strongly urge you to replace the word
> >>     > "censorship" with "blocked content." It covers a much wider range
> of
> >>     > types of content and will be a much more acceptable concept for
> any
> >>     > entity, whether a government or a corporation, to associate
> >>     itself with.
> >>     > And it doesn't require trying to change the meaning of a word
> with a
> >>     > very long history and consensual understanding of its meaning.
> >>
> >>     I don't see "censorship" meaning "political censorship" only,
> starting
> >>     e.g. at Wikipedia (EN), where some consensus seem to have been
> >>     achieved
> >>     (that also holds for other languages, like German):
> >>
> >>     "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or
> >>     other
> >>     information, on the basis that such material is considered
> >>     objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or
> >>     "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by
> community
> >>     consensus. [1]"
> >>
> >>     URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
> >>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship>
> >>
> >>     Why should we find a term to make appear harmless what Western
> >>     governments or corporations are doing on the basis of "good faith"
> >>     / by
> >>     pretending to protect the people etc. and only allow to call it --
> >>     openly -- censorship when less / non-democratic governments are
> doing
> >>     it, for "bad"?
> >>
> >>     I may have an Orwellian view on what's going on, but the reasons why
> >>     governments or corporations engage censors to create lists of sites
> to
> >>     be suppressed shouldn't much care.
> >>
> >>     Greets
> >>
> >>     Hernani
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     p≡p foundation: https://pep.foundation/
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     hrpc mailing list
> >>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> >>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> >>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hrpc mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: [email-masked]
> To: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Sandra Braman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:37:21 -0500
> Subject: Re: [hrpc] re RFC 8280
>
> I might have the source wrong but Thomas Jefferson said that public
> libraries were essential to freedom because they were the only place
> the average person could read the laws which govern them.
>
> The internet, beyond the many other things it can do, fits that
> description in our modern age. It provides simple and straightforward
> access to the law. Denying someone that access could put them at a
> serious disadvantage.
>
> On November 14, 2017 at 04:31 [email-masked] (Niels ten Oever) wrote:
>  > Hmmmm - interesting. Did not think of it.
>  >
>  > How do you think this could / would work on protocol level?
>  >
>  > If you have a suggestion, we can add it to:
>  >
>  > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01
>  >
>  > If you want you can always be a co-author too!
>  >
>  > Best,
>  >
>  > Niels
>  >
>  > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:43:04AM +0800, Sandra Braman wrote:
>  > > Access to information is generally considered fundamental to human
> rights,
>  > > including freedom of expression and on. What was the thinking of the
>  > > authors of this document that led to the absence of this human right
> in the
>  > > RFC?
>  > >
>  > > Thanks --
>  > >
>  > > Sandra Braman
>  >
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > hrpc mailing list
>  > > [email-masked]
>  > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  >
>  > Niels ten Oever
>  > Head of Digital
>  >
>  > Article 19
>  > www.article19.org
>  >
>  > PGP fingerprint         2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>  >                    643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>  >
>  > x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > hrpc mailing list
>  > [email-masked]
>  > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
> --
>         -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]             |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
>