kalm, nieuwsgierig, vastbesloten
Enough to discuss right there.
I. We have the right to connect.
II. We have the right to speak freely.
III. We have the right to assemble and act.
IV. Information should be public by default, secret by necessity.
V. What is public is a public good.
VI. All bits are created equal.
VII. The internet shall be operated openly.
If we are to keep the internet as a relatively free speech zone, we need to start defining some lines we are not willing to cross. Much has been said about Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal, and others pointing to the fine print in their contract to justify their action when it came to shutting down Wikileaks. However, what are we to do if we want to prevent future wikileaks-type organization to suffer the same fates. And if we do not, where will we draw the line when it comes to the press?
Some people may argue that there is a need for more detailed rights specifying what type of content is legal and so on but I live that to the courts to decide. The idea here is to create a framework that allows for rights to be managed in the very long run. The 3 basic rights, along with the contention that “no indictment, no violation” represent, at their most basic level, something we should require of any internet service company. Why not ask your providers to sign on to those basic rights: they would cover them legally while providing the greatest possible amount of freedom for anyone to express themselves on the internet.