Slashdot Mirror
UN Broadcasting Treaty May Restrict Speech
ashshy writes "A UN treaty under proposal could lead to unprecedented restrictions on free speech and fair use rights around the world. Ars Technica pulls together what you need to know from multiple sources." From the article: "The proposed broadcasting treaty would create entirely new global rights for broadcasting companies who have neither created nor own the programming. What's even more alarming is the proposal from the United States that the treaty regulate the Internet transmission of audio and video entertainment. It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."
On Comedy Central I'd say. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have made fun of traditional media- and this attacks their primary way of getting their fake "news" (by Tivo'ing the other channels and picking out stuff to make fun of).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
True, but not conforting. Treaties are negotiated between the parties (sometimes with an intermediary like the UN). Then, each party goes through whatever its ratifying process is; in the US case, ratification requires the consent of the Senate, for example (and do you really think they wouldn't?). Once it is ratified, it is law. Now, there is some disagreement amongst scholars (notably Akhil Amar as a famous dissenting voice) as to whether treaties under US law should be considered superior, equvalent, or subordinate to Federal law when they conflict, but most agree that treaty obligations make treaty items enforceable by US courts under most circumstances.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
"Creating rights" means lifting bans, not the other way around.
Nonsense. "Creating rights" means restricting rights. Every granted right is a restriction on what other people may do.
Treaty is passed --> US begins to enforce the treaty as US law --> To "protect the rights of content creators," compulsory registration of US web sites, blogs, etc. is passed
I realise that this is a slippery slope argument, but I also believe that this could actualy happen in the next decade or so. I think that the internet is more free (as in speech) today then it will be in the near future.
The US proposed this as an UN treaty. It's not yet signed.
Actually everyone (well, every nation that's a member and has the right to, but let's ignore the details for now) can make a proposal. China could propose to have everyone shot that dares to speak up against the ruling bodies of the nations.
What's scary is, it might even get a majority... but let's ignore that detail too.
In fact, if you want to get irate, at least pick the right target. It's not the "UN" who proposed it, it's the US. Or, rather, its leaders.
And I find it quite amusing, in a grim way, that the US government turns to the UN to push through their copywrong internationally. Whenever it goes against their ways, the UN is brushed aside, but suddenly it becomes interesting again.
Face it. The UN is a tool to some countries. No wonder pretty much everyone ignores it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
(emphasis mine)
If you think this is unlikely, remember that if you make up a song and sing it without writing it down or recording it, you have no US rights to that song.
And should you make a major label record, the label owns the copyright to the song you wrote and performed!
AFIAC, both major US political parties are my enemies. I intend to protest by splitting my vote amongst any third parties on the ballot this November. Clearly, my government, as well, it seems, as every other government are in the multinational corporations' back pockets.
Is it going to take an armed revolution to get our countries, our world, back? My country's declaration of independance starts with "We, the People." We, the people aren't being represented at all any more.
Fucking slashdot, I was already in a bad mood today >=(
In any democratic nation a signed treaty is not law until Parliamnent or its equivalent passes enabling legislation. Just because representives sign a treaty doesn't make it law or even certain that Parliament will pass the treaty legislation. Even though Canada has signed on to the WIPO protocols (the alleged impetus in the U.S. for the hated DMCA act) we still haven't passed the required enabling legislation, although the preceding Liberal government did introduce legislation as required by the treaty before it died. Most treaties contain language stating the minimum requirements to meet treaty obligations and dates for compliance. The United States signed the Kyoto Protocol yet President Bush later reversed that decision, so it's not like Kyoto became law in the U.S. the second Clinton signed the treaty.
I know in the U.S. the Senate holds exclusive authority over treaty legislation and once passed treaty obligations are considered equivalent to domestic law, if memory serves. I don't see how the Senate could pass treaty legislation that violates the constitution, but I am not a contitutional expert.
"Despite the benefits, and despite the fact that the data is available to everyone, the use of illegally obtained records in a law enforcement investigation is highly dubious and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of due process. Privacy and civil liberties advocates point out that purchasing private phone records allows law enforcement agencies to circumvent judicial oversight and other applicable constraints."
Well, if it's good enough for the Bush administration and the NSA, it's good enough for your local gendarme. Nice job, break the law to enforce the law. In the post 9/11 era, we've finally adopted that old Marxist maxim that the end justifies the means and two wrongs actually do make a right.
I get tired of saying that we can't pretend to uphold the constitution with one hand while trampling on it with the other.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
The meaning of that statements depends on the binding of the clause "any State." There are two possible parenthesizations:
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
vs.
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution) or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The first meaning implies that a treaty can overrule a State's constitution. The second meaning implies that a treaty can overrule the UNITED STATES Constitution. So which interpretation is correct?
The "in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" clause is used twice in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely:
In short, you do not have right to political asylum in Argentina just because you happen to be a Nazi criminal of war, nor can you be drafted to gas Jews. Ssorry for the double invocation of Goodwin's law, but just after the war that's probably the sort of people they were thinking about.
As for the "purposes and principles of the United Nations", these are not just the swaying opinion of the secretary general of the day, but they are clearly written in the first chapter of the Charter of the United Nations, that sum up to pacifism, freedom, antiracism, and lots of lofty ideals.
Just to get back in topic, see principle number 7:
So, the broadcasting treaty may actually be violating the UN's principles and be thusly busted, as broadcasting laws seem an unnecessary intrusion that has nothing to do with peacekeeping. Chapter VII, in case you wondered, is about "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression", nothing to do with broadcasting rights.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Oh, and explain me again the theory that whatever governments do is evil while corporations can do no wrong because they are a part of a "free market" and should only make money for their stock holders.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---