Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Freedom Won't Be Controlled, Says UN Telcom Chief

Posted by samzenpus on from the hands-off-the-tubes dept.

wiredmikey writes "The head of the UN telecommunications body, Hamadoun Toure, told an audience at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai on Monday that Internet freedom will not be curbed or controlled. 'Nothing can stop the freedom of expression in the world today, and nothing in this conference will be about it,' he said. Such claims are 'completely (unfounded),' Toure, secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union, told AFP. 'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure,' UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said. Google has been vocal in warning of serious repercussions, saying that 'Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even cut off Internet access,' noted Google's Vint Cerf in a blog post."

35 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Millennium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

    1. Re:Really? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is exactly what I was thinking. I am confused as to why the people who are most vocally calling for the ITU to take active control over governance of the Internet are representatives of the governments with the strongest history of actively suppressing freedoms if the only reason for this discussion is to ensure that the Internet remain open.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Really? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly!

      Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity and access to the internet a human right?

      Could it be that you know it is already curbed and controlled and monitored and blocked.

      Oh, look, your nose is growing and your pants seem to be on fire.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Really? by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Follow the money and all? If the US government is crying wolf, are they really interested in ideals, or in advantages for themselves? Same for Google.

      If you assign motives to one side and question their words, do so for the other as well.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Really? by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may be their goal, but they won't get it. It's not what the ITU does and they won't succeed in their ludicrous proposals. They only make those proposals because they have no idea what they're talking about.

      In fact, most of it is political theater. The ITU attendees themselves are well aware that these proposals stand no chance of passage. But the religious zealots in their countries are as ignorant of that as they are about everything else, and enjoy being pandered to. So when the proposals fail, the government can claim that they tried to prohibit blasphemy, but those blasphemous bastards in the West defeated it.

      It's a dangerous and ugly game, because some of these zealots will take it as an excuse for violence. But as far as the leadership is concerned, as long as it's directed against us rather than them, it's all good.

    5. Re:Really? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why bother with words? Let's look at actions.

      The US government is certainly not an organization that values freedom over money. Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:
      1. Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
      2. Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
      3. A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
      4. Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

      These are the sort of things that, despite intense pressure from various industries, we have not seen on the Internet as controlled by ICANN. Sure, we've seen some censorship, but at the end of the day I can still use PGP and I can still run my own mail server, and I can do so without needing to obtain anyone's permission. This morning I ssh'd to my mother's computer to help troubleshoot a problem she was having -- and nothing stopped me, despite the fact that her computer is connected to the Internet through a "consumer grade" cable package.

      ITU has a long history of designing communications systems that cement the power of monopoly service providers and which prevent people from hacking or coming up with their own solutions to problems. ITU's approach to the telephone network reflects its mindset; likewise with ITU's approach to radio. Amateurs? Hackers? You're lucky to get a tiny bit of space to play in, but you better not do anything that could threaten the big boys who provide "real" service to consumers.

      To put it another way, if ITU had designed the Internet, there would never have been Google, because there would have been too much paperwork to fill out, too many licensing fees, and too many bandwidth fees to make something experimental like that work. The Internet's most important design feature is not packet switching, it is the idea that all computers connected to the Internet can do the same things, limited only by technical things like CPU or connection speeds. ITU doesn't design that sort of network; ITU designs this sort of network:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25

      Here, by the way, is ITU's next generation Internet plan:

      http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/gsi/ngn/Pages/default.aspx

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Really? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      the thing is for as bad as the us government is I cant think of anyone else i would rather have in charge.

      It is one of the handful of countries that have explicit right to free speech. Most countries have some limited right of free speech. Where if you say things that they don't like you can be charged for it.

      Many of the countries at that meeting want cross border jursidiction where if you break a law in their country and someone there reads it you can be charged for it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Really? by grcumb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

      It's a bit of rather disingenuous misdirection.

      Touré claims that the ITU have no intention of touching anything to do with Internet governance, but this is not entirely honest: The treaty-making process starts with independent submissions from various national institutions and telecoms industry bodies. While none of them have any formal status at this point in time as ITU policy, a significant number of them speak specifically for the perceived need for transit fees for large content providers (e.g. Google). Were they to be taken up as components of the revised ITRs, they would indeed place limits on the growth of the Internet, especially in developing nations. The precedent of 'pay-to-play', for example, favours large incumbents far more than upstart content providers, especially those in the developing world, where cash flow is often limited and incomes small.

      Given the rather stark opposition coming from the US and key EU countries, I still doubt whether any of the most contentious proposals will ever achieve the consensus required to become binding. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, significant parts of the last (1988) set of ITRs have been ignored even by some of the ITUs strongest supporters.

      As usual, MIchael Geist is the go-to guy to understand exactly what forces are at play here. His contention is that the 'UN takeover' spin conveniently hides a more insidious issue: Who pays for content?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:Really? by sl149q · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well the ITU and ISO did design an internet... and it was simply politely ignored by the implementors of what we now call the Internet.

      Other than governance the ITU/ISO model is one of top down design by committee. Compared to the IETF practice of bottom up implementation and design using RFC's and demonstrable code.

      The former model led to X.400 (possibly the best known example, but not the only one) for Email. Pretty much non-implementable in full and with little inter-operability between the implementations that did get done. It died a quick (although very expensive) death.

      While the IETF model has problems. They have managed to get the Internet to where it is today. Handing it over to the ITU/ISO would probably not be in the best interest of anyone.

    9. Re:Really? by bug1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet ICANN has not done any of the following things that the ITU has proposed:
              Unique identifiers for Internet users or their computers
              Separate "service classes" for servers and client computers
              A system of fees, surcharges, etc.
              Special licensing for providing particular kinds of Internet services

      How many elected US government officials have;
        - Overseen and supported extensive national and international surveillance of the internet.
        - Supported warrantless/roaming wiretapping laws which some argue are unconstitutional.
        - Supported a tiered internet
        - Proposed taxing the internet.

      So much propaganda flowing in support of ICANN.

    10. Re:Really? by tbird81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not. I live in NZ.

      I would rather have the US "controlling" the internet, than a bunch of Saudi Arabians!

      Every country is not equal. Some care more about freedom than others. Germans don't. Russians don't. The scores of Islamic countries certainly don't.

      Fuck those countries. They can make their own internet. The UN can make its own internet, try to charge excessively to pay for the exorbitant lifestyles of its member politicians, and see who uses it.

      Why do they think they can take over something that does no belong to them? Fucking Nazis.

    11. Re:Really? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kia Ora cuz! I live in New Zealand too (for the benefit of everyone else).

      I wholeheartedly support your sentiments. For me the thing is is, ICANN has to obey the laws and courts of the US where Free Speech is protected (vigorously, but outfits like the EFF and supported by the courts). Once the UN gets its mitts on the Internet there is no way anyone can try and influence it. Furthermore, the UN is corrupt in the sense that the resolutions that get passed don't actually match its founding ideals - yet there is nothing the citizens of the World can actually do about it.

      Corruption of the UN
      Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

      Case History - reasons to oppose the move
      Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups. Once the ITU actually got power could those special interest groups warp the normal process and corrupt the ITU in the same way that voting the UN General Assembly has been corrupted by voting blocs? Well, I'll give two examples for consideration:

      • ISO was a pretty respected organization. However there was a fiasco several years back where Microsoft essentially stuffed ballots for voting on the Office OpenXML document standard (despite ISO already having adopted the Open Document format as its standard). Lots of 'first time' voters registered for this, chairman barred any dissenting questions from being raised and the standard was forced through. A clear case of a single corporation warping a standards body for its own interests (and arguably, against the interests of the general population of document users, who had a preference for truly open standards).
      • Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement. It is an essential part of Free Speech to be able to criticize, even to the point of offense. It is no surprise that the anti-Free Speech advocates who pushed for this are also pushing to move control of the Internet from ICANN (where Free Speech is protected by US law) to the UN ITU - where they can regulate the Internet and *forcibly* prohibit *your* Free Speech.

      One doesn't have to be an astrophysicist (although I am/was :) ) to see how these examples are the representative of possible future trouble if the Internet was to slip out from ICANN's protection.

      Let's not give up our open Internet, and other Freedoms without making a fuss, eh?

    12. Re:Really? by rs79 · · Score: 2

      Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.

      When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.

      The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt

      Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...

      Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    13. Re:Really? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why is the UN this way? unfortunately it is due to past and future conflicts (a legacy of the Cold War, and now influenced by the rise of global Jihad and Salafism). I refer you to this video for an overview (mid-way describes how the Non-Aligned and Islamic movements have joined to form a voting bloc to defeat the interests of the US, Israel and much of the 'Western' World)"

      I'm intrigued, pray tell how does an Islamic voting block defeat the interests of the US, Israel and the rest of the West in the UN's organisations that requires a consensus vote? Even if they gain a majority a majority is still meaningless where consensus is required. Majority voting only works in places like the general assembly which is entirely unrelated to the ITU. The ITU for what it's worth was created in about the 1880s, about 60 years before the UN, which is a large reason why it has a very different structure to some other UN organisations.

      "Now some on these forums have argued that the ITU has been good at what it does. This is entirely true. However, I would argue that this was precisely because the ITU held no power that it has avoided the manipulating interest of special groups."

      It has no inherent power, nor will it ever do beyond that which is granted through consensus of it's member states - i.e. just about every country in the world. The ITU can only do what the entire world agrees unanimously it can do - you seem to believe it's some kind of entity that exists in a vacuum, that's not true, it only exists and can do things where states unanimously agree to let it do so. To date those powers granted have been things like assigning communication satellite orbits - because someone has to do that and if states do so independently you'll find countries accidently crashing satellites into each other.

      "Second example. The UN is working on making criticism of religion equivalent to hate speech. This means you can't say that the beheading of criminals under Islam's Sharia Law is barbaric, because Muslims will almost certainly wail that they have been offended by your statement."

      This is simply an outright lie. What would be correct to say is that a few countries have proposed this even though they have no hope of passing it, and even if they did there is no structure within the UN by which they could multilaterally enforce it on those countries who don't want this. It's worrying that to try and make a point you're having to resort to outright literal FUD, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you've said this through lack of knowledge about the topic, rather than an attempt to maliciously manipulate the discussion using the politics of fear.

      It seems the majority of your post seems to be a muddle of anti-Islamic paranoia and confusion about how the UN/ITU relationship and governance works. Your post reads like a Fox News fear piece, rather than a factual, useful commentary.

      For what it's worth we've already lost our free internet, if you haven't noticed ICE domain seizures are already enforcing global internet censorship at the behest of a single government. This is the flip side of your initial point that you've failed to mention - that ICANN also has to adhere to the bad laws of the US as well as the good due to it being part of a single nation. The situation is hence not quite as perfect as you make out.

      If you genuinely care about internet freedom you wouldn't be spending your time spreading FUD about the ITU/UN/Islam, you'd instead be trying to create pressure on the US to make ICANN a special entity that is above US law when it comes to demands from judges in some backwater part of a US state, or customs officials bought off by the MPAA/RIAA to enforce global internet censorship. If you did that, and achieved that, there'd be no valid reason for people to argue for a move to ITU control of ICANN in the first place. You're focussing on the symptom of the problem of calls for changes to internet governance, rather than the root cause - fixing US mismanagement of t

  2. But... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    As for those claims that we have a crack team of ex-Ma Bell billing experts working on proposals to better 'monetize' the internet and ensure hilariously usurious returns on 'investment' by incumbent telcos? Well, now, I never disavowed that...

  3. Reality is they are doubling down... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... on media secrecy. Techdirt has more here:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01525121195/doubling-down-secrecy-itu-believes-secret-media-strategy-key-to-avoiding-sopaacta-fate.shtml

    1. Re:Reality is they are doubling down... by multicoregeneral · · Score: 2

      Right. I think it's fair to turn government logic back on them in this case. If they are telling the truth about their intentions, and they are not doing anything the public would object to, then why the secret meetings and media silence on the whole thing? Since they're being secretive and quiet, one can only reasonably assume that they're up to no good, and that they need to be monitored.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  4. High priests of do nothing by h8sg8s · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is this the same ITU that wanted to charge me $1200 for a single binder of doc back in 2007? They view information as power and want to install themselves as the high priests. Control the Internet? I think not.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  5. Why bother denying the obvious? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    "'We must continue to work together and find a consensus on how to most effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure"

    Lets see it still costs me > $1/min to make international calls.

    It costs me nothing to transfer information over the Internet to any destination in the world.

    The consensus appears to be ITU "continuing" its march into irrelevance as the Internet eventually replaces the telephone network.

    1. Re:Why bother denying the obvious? by mikael · · Score: 2

      Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  6. Open, accessible, affordable and secure? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Q: What is the difference between the US and UN controlled internet? Both guarantee freedom of speech.
    A: Yes, but the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
    ie Open, accessible, affordable - sounds like a trap to get you online.
    The secure sounds like easy tracking at any point along the network.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Decentralize it, only way to be sure by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've said it before: decentralize it, it's the only way to be sure. The USA govt. at the moment (via the Dept. Commerce) has effective control over the generic domain names. And they use that control. They shut down websites for all sorts of reasons, including accidentally. They shut down websites that are operating in foreign countries, hosted in foreign countries, and don't even target US citizens. Oh, but they happen to host links to copyrighted material. Or they happen to be doing a perfectly legal thing in their own country, e.g. providing DRM breaking tools, or online gambling, but which isn't legal in the USA.

    And people think that the ITU is some how going to be worse? It would be different, but I can't see how it could be worse (you couldn't get all the countries to agree anyway, and if the USA really cared, they could just veto stuff; I think the ITU operates on a consensus model). (Fun fact: the ITU is older than the UN, and the previous League of Nations; it was setup back in the 1800s.)

    Still, the best solution is to decentralize. Perhaps a web of trust; I trust this person (these people) and they (a clear majority) say that this domain resolves to this IP address. Actually, the domain name system is already a trust exercise, with people choosing which resolver to go with (e.g. I currently use Google's 8.8.8.8 as I can't remember the local one, and I'm not sure I would trust it more than Google anyway), and the resolver ultimately choosing a root.

    So why can't we decentralize it more? Come on people, I know there are lots of smart people, get together and work out an alternative DNS and make it really easy for everyone to use. And make it not be in the hands of anyway. Perhaps a federalized system. But remove control from governments and corporations and give it back to the people, just like God intended when he created the Internet. (Also more people use FreeNet please.)

    --
    HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    1. Re:Decentralize it, only way to be sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's not just CP/IP. You can also get shut down for things including, but not limited to:
        - Carrying information deemed to be "propaganda" for groups hostile to US interests
        - Selling holiday flights to Cuba
        - Publishing information that the US gov't deems 'classified'
        - Running an online casino

      This vaunted 'freedom of expression on the Internet' has only ever been as deep as the government wanted it to be.

  8. Re:Unless you say something negative towards Moham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    and the camel he rode in on.

    Yeah, he probably did.

  9. Steely Neely said it best. by sconeu · · Score: 2

    "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

    She's an engineer at heart.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Steely Neely said it best. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      This is the UN. Their motto is: "If it's not broke, break it." Followed by: "If it has money, pillage it." And "If there are small children, send in the soldiers so they can rape them."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Let the UN and ITU run their own Internet . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    . . . and leave the rest, as-is.

    And then see which one folks use.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Never believe anything until it has been officiall by etudiant · · Score: 2

    Bismarck said: Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. Presumably Mr Toure's comment qualifies as an official denial.

  12. Re:Uhm... by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Shorter Vint Cerf: Some proposals would actually allow sovereign governments to enforce their sovereignty, as bad as that may be.

    Nobody would support the UN forcing the US government to do anything; it's funny when we're shocked that Russia or China would insist on being able to regulate cables and boxen that operate on their own frigging soil.

    Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative. Or are we working from the idea that the Internet is actually greater and more important than any government, and that the laws of a state (democratic or not) are not binding upon it? How do you think an American government would react if it was told by the UN, or Mexico, that it was forbidden from arresting undocumented migrants, because such action would infringe upon an individual's absolute freedom of movement, as protected by some UN declaration of human rights?

    Freedom is a good thing, freedom of speech is a good thing, in the US we are blessed to have a national polity that respects it. The Internet can allow it to flourish in other places too. However, any goodwill for your cause is likely going to be depleted twice over if people in Iran and Burma come to believe that, as shitty as their government may be, actual decisions that govern their virtual life take place in Marina del Rey, and it wouldn't matter who was running their country. They'd call it imperialism, and they'd be right.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  13. Re:Well, almost free speech by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

    Fuck the UN

    /BRB, Black Helicopters

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  14. Re:Don't trust coercive monopolies on violence by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and FDR"

    If the credence I gave to your post were plotted as a function of how much I'd read, at this point there would be a discontinuous step to zero.

  15. The big issue has been how it's billed by isdnip · · Score: 4, Informative

    As to censorship, the ITU never proposed censoring the Internet. That's not their bailiwick -- national governments can and do censor domestic Internet access, and the ITU can't stop them. Nor can it force a government to do anything. The US can simply declare an Exception to an ITU rule and it doesn't apply here. Enough bilateral Exceptions and the ITU is irrelevant.

    I did read the more controversial proposals. What a lot of countries wanted was to treat the Internet as if it were telecommunications (it is seen in the US as the content of telecommunications, not the telecommunications itself) and to apply telephone call-like charging to packets. So if somebody in Benin or Fiji downloaded a movie from YouTube, their country would receive payment from YouTube. In many countries this would go to the government, supposedly to pay for the network facilities but of course many of these countries are remarkably corrupt...

    And unlike a phone call, where the party who dials the call pays, Internet payments would be made by the side sending the packets, even if the other side asked them to. This would of course probably cause YouTube and other high-volume information sources to shut off access to those countries. Not censorship per se, but pay to talk.

    Other proposals on the table are technically unworkable, but then the old PTT (post-telegraph-telephone) guys who dominate ITU-T don't understand how the Internet works (very, very tenuously).

  16. "Legitimate" Speech by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    Any talk about "Legitimate" speech is on the same level as "Legitimate Rape". All speech is legitimate, though, clearly the UN and most of its members do not.

    Don't believe me that the UN classifies political dissent as non-protected? Just look at their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop where it says Article 29: (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Do we really want people controlling the internet who in their own "bill of rights" basically say you don't have these basic, "universal" rights if you disagree with us?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  17. Re:Uhm... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

    No accommodations should be made to make things easy for censorious, oppressive governments to act in such a manner.

    I don't see how this principle could stand, without forcing nation-states to submit their laws to the UN (or Vint Cerf for that matter) for approval as "sufficiently non-oppresive." Let alone your proposal for Internet trade warfare -- do you really think denying Amazon.com to the people of Shiraz is going to get them to turn against the Basij?

    Hey, stop arresting and deporting people who bypass legal channels to enter your country!

    The whole point is that undocumented migrants don't see it that way, to them, la migra is the oppressor trying to force them to eat lizards at the Nike factory in Matamoros, when they could be earning a small fortune mowing lawns in San Antonio, working for people who are falling over themselves to pay them. The idea that a state has the right to use force to prevent this or that case of economic migration is, SURPRISE!, very contentious and a source of genuine dispute between nations and peoples.

    Guess what: the US has "legal channels" for keeping out the wetbacks, Japan has "legal channels" for torturing dolphins, Germany has "legal channels" for suppressing political parties, just as Egypt has "legal channels," for the very same thing. Who are international diplomats, university academics, let alone foreigners, to pass judgement on any state?

    This is more than a little like Niemoller principle -- it's easy to attack repressive regimes, but if you come for the freedom of North Korea to make its laws, where does it stop? Does the US get an out, because everything it does is obviously virtuous? And how do all the other nation-states feel about that rather clubby arrangement?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  18. Legitimate speech? Excuse me what? by xtal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's the problem.

    All speech is legitimate. If words threaten you so badly you can't refute them on their grounds; well.. the truth is a bitch.

    As far as I can tell, the USA is as close a bastion of true free speech as exists, and that right hasn't been molested too badly. I do not want my internet in the charge of those who would seek to regulate in the name of "religious tolerance".

    All words should be read and judged on their own merits.

    Screw the ITU.

    --
    ..don't panic