Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Approves Internet Bill of Rights
First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies."
Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.
Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
has just given itself the right to apply censure in whatever it pleases, by using this law as a Trojan Horse and inserting in it a vague statement regarding what is unacceptable and not protected by freedom of speech.
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.
Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.
The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?
Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?
Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is "faith" to you, then your definition of "faith" is indeed worthless.
That's pretty reasonable don't you think?
That depends on what you think qualifies as a "right." And the magical bullshit makes it unreasonable to me.
And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.
I will, however, refer to you as an ignorant nutter. You don't understand atheists or faith. You're welcome.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...