International Online Debate On Freedom of Expression

JL Fandiari writes "The Internet Rights Forum, a french non-profit organization, has just opened an international discussion forum on 'Freedom of Expression in the Information Society.'(http://www.foruminternet.org/en/ for the English version). This forum is co-moderated by three professors of Law : an Amerian (Burton Caine), a Canadian (Pierre Trudel), a Belgian (Etienne Montero), a Senegalian lawyer (Mr Elhadj Mame Gning) and is coordinated by Lionel Thoumyre (the author of Juriscom.net). Their contributions are regularly translated into French or English. This amazing experiment has been initiated to prepare a symposium organized by the French national Commission for UNESCO on 15 and 16 November in Paris on the same theme. Their say the content of the discussion forum will be synthesized in a report to be presented to the participants and the speakers of the symposium. This symposium is placed within the perspective of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 in Geneva. Be sure to answer the contribution of Burton Caine, professor at the Temple University School of Law, that starts by asking 'Who are we?'"

Comments

Transparency International

[justanyone]

I'd be glad to hear from the group Transparency International (often quoted in the Economist) in connection with this project. Perhaps they have a deleate they can send to this conference. I've been reading about their activities helping citizens in many countries ask questions of their governments about election results, closed-door meeting minutes, campaign contributions, budget expenditures, etc.

I'm sure that they'd have an opinion about Free Speech rights in many countries where such rights would do the most good in promoting good governance. Yet, though I've read about them in The Economist, I've not heard of them elsewhere. Is anyone out there a member? Where does Transparency International get funding and is it a good cause (I don't know either way, I just hear good stuff about their activities).

It seems to me a debate about free speech has to hit on the following issues:

• Commercial speech (copyright law);
  
• Personal speech about "innocent" topics ("my kid likes dogs");
  
• Personal criticism on controversial topics (e.g., "I hate people that..." ;-) )
  
• Personal criticism of people ("Joe stinks!");
  
• Personal libelous speech of people ("Joe beats his wife");
  
• Personal libelous speech of public figures ("Senator Joe beats his wife");
  
• Personal speech criticizing government actions ("the Army kidnapped my grandmother");
  
• Asking the government questions ("Hey, Senator, where is my Grandmother?");
  
• Challenging religious thought ("God looks like Bella Abzug!");
  
• Hate speech ("I hate everyone who thinks God looks like Bella Abzug!");
  
• Incitement to Riot speech ("Let's Kill everyone who thinks god looks like Bella Abzug!");
  

I'm sure my list is meager and could be added to, but perhaps it's a starting point for discussions on the nature of speech. Did I miss any?

Re:Transparency International

[Gorm the DBA]

I would like to see some discussions about the boundries of "Speech".

Where does something become speech?

Is code speech? If so, then you can't control code, which brings the entire "copyright" issue into question. Nor can you ban DeCSS and the like, which would probably wouldn't make the RIAA and etc very happy.

On the other hand, if code isn't speech, then it isn't really appropriate for protection under Copyright laws anyhow, since they are designed to protect profit for the benefits of your own thoughts and words. It might become appropriate under Patent laws, but then Microsoft would have to apply for Patents on all of the "New Technology" they develop...which could be subject to Prior Art claims from the companies they stole it from...

But, since the question has never been definitively answered, then the corporations get to use the definitions most benefical to them. "It's speechlike, so I can Copyright it", "It's not speech, so I can ban it".

Those sorts of things need to be redefined in the 21st Century.