Report on UN conference on Internet and racism

[Forwarded with permission, first few grafs deleted by request. --Declan]

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:40:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Margarita Lacabe <marga@derechos.org>
Subject: UN Conference

[The lineup from the conference]

-Debra Guzman, a long-time american human rights activist, gave a general
appreciation of hate sites online. She said that it was very difficult to
find them and unlikely that one would stumble on them.

-Teresa Peters, another american from the Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development Information Computer and
Communications Policy Committee talked about a study that her organization
had made about regulating speech on the internet, and about the problems
this lead to. I think the study is not public, and she did not go much
beyond what the study concluded. I didn't take good notes on her speech,
however :-(

-Philip Reitinger, a prosecutor with the US DOJ, summarize US free speech
legislation and made clear that hate web sites are protected under US law.
He also addressed the likely constitutional protections of anonimity, but
left open the question of whether the US could cooperate with other
countries in investigating people who violate speech laws abroad.

-Timothy Jenkins, who as far as I can tell is mostly a consultant and
someone who is trying to get the black leadership interested in the
internet, talked about how the real problem here was that internet access
is disproportionatelly held by white (males?) in the US and Europe, and
how the lack of access to computers might be a form of racial
discrimination. He did not agree with censorship of web sites BUT he
introduced the issue of anonimity, being for restricting anonimity so as
to be able to tell who the authors of racist speech were (this was
followed by a strong denunciation by the US delegate and yours truely)

-ERic Lee, from the  Commercial Internet eXchange, an association of ISPs
talked about why ISPs shouldn't be held responsible for content and also
gave a good explanation of how the internet works.

-Agha Shahi, a member of the  Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, gave a forceful opinion on how the Convention applies
online and how countries must criminalize hate speech online.

-Rudiger Dossow, from the Council of Europe, talked about what the Council
has been thinking about the issue and warned about potential pitfalls.

-Maya Sooka, from Sangonet in SA, questioned the code of conduct idea that
had been proposed several times

- Anthony M. Rutkowski, now from Magic, talked about how the internet
works, how impossible it is to regulate it, and how it should not be
regulated differently from other media.

At some point there was a presentation by the Simon Wiesenthal center on
hate sites online, and another by the ITU, which I did not quite
understand, about how hundreds of satellites are being launched.

In addition to the experts, the conference had representatives from some
UN and Int'l bodies, including the department of public information, the
OHCHR, the ITU, the Internet Society and others who remained mostly
silent. There were representatives from several countries, including the
US, Sweeden, Germany, France and Cuba. Most representatives were embassy
people, but those from Sweeden, france and germany were from different
ministries in their countries. These three representatives who were among
the most vocal in the conference seemed to be the only ones who were
actually aware of the legal issues concerned, as well as to what the
internet is :-)  The NGOs were badly represented, there was no one from
the groups that watch hate speech online (except for the brief appearance
of the guy from the simon Wiesenthal center). In addition to the three of
us, article 19 - the free speech organization - in England was
represented, there was a guy from the World Jewish Conference who was
there half the time, a couple of people from this organization for adult
education, a professor from the Universtiy of Geneva who spoke a few
times, and some assorted people from Geneva based groups who were mostly
silent.  There was also a guy from Indigienous World Association who
missunderstood pretty much everything said, but was very passionate.

(to be continued)

Margarita Lacabe - Derechos - marga@derechos.org - http://www.derechos.org
____________________________________________________________________________

        The governors as well as the governed are bound by the law and
    by the established system of making, changing and interpreting the law
                             AKA The Rule of Law

At 05:22 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>[Forwarded with permission, first few grafs deleted by request. --Declan]
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:40:22 -0800 (PST)
>From: Margarita Lacabe <marga@derechos.org>
>Subject: UN Conference
>
<Much deleted>
> There was also a guy from Indigienous World Association who
>missunderstood pretty much everything said, but was very passionate.

Well, if that isn't a summary of 99% of non-netizens, I don't know what is...

Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing
a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United 
States to
set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?
For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in 
California out of reach
of German law.
Would it be constitutional to make a law barring  foreign citizens from 
violating the speech
codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?

At 05:59 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights.
>However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.
>
Actually I seem to remember that U.S. citizens have full constitutional
protection (only from the U.S. government of course) no matter where they
reside, non-citizens have full protection within the borders of the U.S.,
and non-citizens have partial protection outside the borders of the U.S.  I
don't remember how much is covered by the last though.  

>If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online,
>it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a
>book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article
>written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially
>unconstitutional.
>
>Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the
>type of analysis I'd pursue.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>>Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing
>>a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United
>>States to
>>set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?
>>For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in
>>California out of reach
>>of German law.
>>Would it be constitutional to make a law barring  foreign citizens from
>>violating the speech
>>codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
>
>
>
>
>


                             -Colin

At 7:54 PM -0700 11/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of
>another country who are living in that country.
>
>If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from
>principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's
>bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.

 This is a slam dunk truth. This is black letter law.

I'm surprised this is even being debated.

"Congress shall make no law.." does not mean that government gets to ban
sales and distritution of works by Tolstoy, Zola, Stendahl, Marx, and so on.

Get real.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03102809b0980bf30a9e@[207.167.93.63]>, on 11/18/97 
   at 08:25 PM, Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:

>At 7:54 PM -0700 11/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of
>>another country who are living in that country.
>>
>>If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from
>>principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's
>>bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.

> This is a slam dunk truth. This is black letter law.

>I'm surprised this is even being debated.

>"Congress shall make no law.." does not mean that government gets to ban
>sales and distritution of works by Tolstoy, Zola, Stendahl, Marx, and so
>on.

>Get real.

Well you forget Tim that here in the "Land of the Freeh" the Constitution
is only a minor incovienance to ObPCVoteBuying by the criminals in DC.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHJxWI9Co1n+aLhhAQGjXQP+LK1j+q0duTha9KoyBJf5A8+Ejjm9UcY9
7KqPU2JCPny/d+goGdN8WxQonf8VHHRaqKLxQsIPDoFxiRBW13HlKvfXtrelsE8l
gCKf48+RvZt1IvUvWcisOzrlCa5cUjqnqd+F7HVaxXOKRBqU4O2Dbo8TAS0/Ci8G
9qV/lk6W2Ps=
=sozA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights.
However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.

If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online,
it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a
book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article
written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially
unconstitutional.

Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the
type of analysis I'd pursue.

-Declan


At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing
>a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United
>States to
>set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?
>For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in
>California out of reach
>of German law.
>Would it be constitutional to make a law barring  foreign citizens from
>violating the speech
>codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hi Dekan,

I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional
protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings
against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to
provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked
rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use
of it).


In <v0300780db097ccdea2d8@[168.161.105.216]>, on 11/18/97 
   at 05:59 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:

>My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights.
>However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and
>protect.

>If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online,
>it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing
>a book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article
>written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially
>unconstitutional.

>Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's
>the type of analysis I'd pursue.

>-Declan


>At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>>Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing
>>a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United
>>States to
>>set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?
>>For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in
>>California out of reach
>>of German law.
>>Would it be constitutional to make a law barring  foreign citizens from
>>violating the speech
>>codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?



- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHI5Uo9Co1n+aLhhAQFUcAQAueD75l1KxJ5KW0ADWkUaxjMjtOcn3ttd
ptVJVX5fQypBm+3sD/JNv4r9GJh5KJFG7SpktBrwWaYd0PFH9bxfytFSrFsPUcyD
UHK/dyyEvHpPlibtlvrEF811AciiL6ee0oSS6NsUFKhGOncKcB662XbjL9+TbWH3
bnLeFYfvtJ4=
=SDKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Hi Dekan,
> 
> I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional
> protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings
> against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to
> provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked
> rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use
> of it).
> 

Interesting.  I was under the opinion that schooling and "social services"
were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a pot to
piss in.

Constitutional rights are contractual government guarantees to protect
well known natural rights.  (pleez send all natural rights flames straight
to /dev/null since we all know what they are and have different name for
them) 

Because of the kind of animals that we are, natural law has evolved as an
emergent philosophical model that protects the right of the individual to
do as they please and to profit from the fruits of their labors so long as
they harm no one else.  I pretty much massacred that definition, but
hey, I'm not getting payed for this.

How can we provide *services* to non-citizens and call that a right?

Who the hell pays for it?

Of course you could make the argument that involutarily providing
services even for citizens is brain damaged, but we call that socialism
and take it up to argue on some other channel than cypherpunks.

jim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971118181728.23634B-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on
11/18/97 
   at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:

>On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>> Hi Dekan,
>> 
>> I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional
>> protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings
>> against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to
>> provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked
>> rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use
>> of it).
>> 

>Interesting.  I was under the opinion that schooling and "social
>services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a
>pot to piss in.

>Constitutional rights are contractual government guarantees to protect
>well known natural rights.  (pleez send all natural rights flames
>straight to /dev/null since we all know what they are and have different
>name for them) 

>Because of the kind of animals that we are, natural law has evolved as an
>emergent philosophical model that protects the right of the individual to
>do as they please and to profit from the fruits of their labors so long
>as they harm no one else.  I pretty much massacred that definition, but
>hey, I'm not getting payed for this.

>How can we provide *services* to non-citizens and call that a right?

>Who the hell pays for it?

>Of course you could make the argument that involutarily providing
>services even for citizens is brain damaged, but we call that socialism
>and take it up to argue on some other channel than cypherpunks.

Oh I agree with you here that there is not constutional right to social
services. I wish I had a reference to the court decisions on this. It was
a year or two ago regarding one of the balot propositions in California
that would cut off various social services to illegal aliens. I am going
off memory here but I don't think it ever got all the way to the SC. If
anyone has a reference to this case please post. 

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHJGN49Co1n+aLhhAQHA5AP/aA8EdlyfTUL3Ev/Kbz3rGqtSwcxRB3Gf
Hp8kQxXXOOazlGVogPvKM4qaeiwXoYKrTbqv2cdG4S/cKJv2sZ39ZsGb5xaztPiD
drezpHo2EJH5iayB5Pytb2EkBg3taTLj5gB33um2Cxq3UEDII/fFc1jCK35kbWYQ
NS8HmsWCv84=
=xFp8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971118181728.23634B-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on
11/18/97 
   at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:

>Interesting.  I was under the opinion that schooling and "social
>services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a
>pot to piss in.

Well I have done some more research on this.

Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts
have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public
education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187
in California.

The proposition I mentioned in my last post was Prop 187.

I seem to be having some difficulty in finding the actual documents
regarding this case and subsequent court rulings (opinions on it I can
find by the truckload).

I'll keep searching but if anyone has a pointer to where this info can be
found it would be appreciated.

OK I found Plyler v Doe at:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202

I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

It seems that this case is one of the main attacks against Prop 187 which
AFAIK is still in the courts.

Here is a ruling of the 9th district by Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

http://128.120.36.171/By-Month/MN-Vol-3-96/Prop_187_Opinion.html

Appendix A of this ruling has the text of Prop 187.

I still have not been able to find out where this thing is in the court
system.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHJpRI9Co1n+aLhhAQEnKAQAwxxik4Ear4xUU68Cy4dziUuf6nFxc8u3
ldSjC62r5okgDWMmfvOyBjp6bTv1Svencxqw+tMUpI6Eek/C1ibcWJP14wmiDEs6
1+Bvw7aS27umtEz6ZDqCMA+YS677uWEXQUjBARbu+pW0MQePe65VfpZbErv2G9IM
IfXEjyRaZQI=
=KM6s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>    at 06:28 PM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:
> 
> >Interesting.  I was under the opinion that schooling and "social
> >services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a
> >pot to piss in.
> 
> Well I have done some more research on this.
> 
> Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts
> have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public
> education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187
> in California.

Either the SC has a different definition of "right" than the one I 
was taught in civics class in 1973, you misread the decision or
I have the honor of declaring the SC wrong (again).

(I know...how can a lowly citizen like me -- not even a lawyer
have the gall do declare this?  Because I don't get my opinions
from the SC.)

> I'll keep searching but if anyone has a pointer to where this info can be
> found it would be appreciated.
> 
> OK I found Plyler v Doe at:
> 
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202
> 

OK.  I'll read this.  To tell you the truth I don't hold a lot of hope for
the SC.  They are the ones that refused to hear the case of the little
girls in public school who were repeatedly strip searched by teachers 'cuz
they might have been hiding 5 dollars. 

All the courts up the the SC ruled that the it was just a case of
"poor judgement".  This reminds me of the Orange County Donald
Scott affair, where the prosecuting attorney of OC, after refusing
to prosecute the government agents involved, said they "lost their
moral compass".  Of course, after having said this, the prosecuting
attorney did not allude to where the agents involved could go to
find their moral compass.

I'm sure some citizen units have an idea.
> 
> It seems that this case is one of the main attacks against Prop 187 which
> AFAIK is still in the courts.
> 

I thought this was recently ruled on by our friends in the SC and 
Prop 187 was found constitutional.

Pretty screwy if you ask me, but the court system doesn't have to
make sense.  Since court decisions seem based on case law and not
any semblance of morality(?) or constitutional contractual 
obligation judges seem free to find the exact bit of case law
that defends their decisions.

Much like some sort of perverse argument between fundamentalists
each basing their reasons on selected excerpts from the bible.
If you have ever had the priveledge to witness this kind of
battle of the mentally unarmed, you know what I mean.

Then again sometimes a judge just pleasantly suprises the hell
out of me.

go figure...


jim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <Pine.LNX.3.95.971119103908.23634C-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>, on
11/19/97 
   at 10:55 AM, Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> said:

>Pretty screwy if you ask me, but the court system doesn't have to make
>sense.  Since court decisions seem based on case law and not any
>semblance of morality(?) or constitutional contractual  obligation judges
>seem free to find the exact bit of case law that defends their decisions.

Reminds me of an old Sci-Fi story where in the future all the courtrooms
were computerized. The two opposing lawers would submit disks containing
case law to the computer. One lawer would present one case and the
opposing lawer would present a case that over ruled it. This would go back
and forth until one of the lawers presented a case that could not be over
ruled by the other.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHPC849Co1n+aLhhAQFeCgP6AhOyIQAaKHhA8k06Hij5IB831wX4Krjs
55O1khAB4oWaAObHlOhY10Og0qVVMfNfAVUWTlTElYJYaxE1svPV1QVu8fJ31dm4
uPnMms6JTSOBzEAES4vVC/YQBoQ4cMnE0iTkaod6C49EHUEMrfy2dhrBiRMqy9hZ
ftCwFfrHfKw=
=n69n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> >Interesting.  I was under the opinion that schooling and "social
> >services" were no more constitutional rights then, say, free food or a
> >pot to piss in.
> Well I have done some more research on this.
> Seems that there is a SC decision in Plyler v Doe 1982 in which the courts
> have ruled that a child (citizen or not) has the *right* to public
> education. This comes out of a Texas case not too differnt from Prop 187
> in California.

	The 2 problems I have are (1) Citizen implies that one is a member 
of a political division such as a state at some level. If you want to live
in a free world you have to give up citizenship as a requirement for anything. 
and (2) Education, of ANYONE, properly carried out will generate more of 
value FOR society than not educating, and one could with very little intellect
see how NOT educating people costs society.

	As to wether the state should provide financial support for schools,
well that is another matter.

At 5:51 PM -0800 11/18/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>Oh I agree with you here that there is not constutional right to social
>services. I wish I had a reference to the court decisions on this. It was
>a year or two ago regarding one of the balot propositions in California
>that would cut off various social services to illegal aliens. I am going
>off memory here but I don't think it ever got all the way to the SC. If
>anyone has a reference to this case please post.

It is still grinding thru the courts.  Governor Pete Wilson is still
pushing the cut off.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | One party wants to control | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | what you do in the bedroom,| 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | the other in the boardroom.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of
another country who are living in that country.

If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from
principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's
bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.

-Declan

At 16:38 -0800 11/18/97, Colin A. Reed wrote:
>At 05:59 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>My take on it is that overseas citizens have no Constitutional rights.
>>However ISPs in the U.S. have rights that U.S. laws recognize and protect.
>>
>Actually I seem to remember that U.S. citizens have full constitutional
>protection (only from the U.S. government of course) no matter where they
>reside, non-citizens have full protection within the borders of the U.S.,
>and non-citizens have partial protection outside the borders of the U.S.  I
>don't remember how much is covered by the last though.
>
>>If a U.S. law prevented an ISP from contracting to put a web site online,
>>it would be like a law that prevented a U.S. book company from publishing a
>>book penned by a German. Or the Netly News from publishing an article
>>written by our London correspondent. Such a law would be facially
>>unconstitutional.
>>
>>Perhaps the analogy between an ISP and publisher is inexact, but that's the
>>type of analysis I'd pursue.
>>
>>-Declan
>>
>>
>>At 23:33 +0100 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>>>Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing
>>>a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United
>>>States to
>>>set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?
>>>For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in
>>>California out of reach
>>>of German law.
>>>Would it be constitutional to make a law barring  foreign citizens from
>>>violating the speech
>>>codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>                             -Colin

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of
> another country who are living in that country.
> 
> If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from
> principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's
> bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.
But would the goverment under existing law have a right to force
the publisher  to disclose the real identity of the one who wrote the 
inflamatory message to a foreign goverment?
Does the application of bilateral treaties the United States has with 
other countries require dual criminality i.e. child pornography, piracy, 
fraud etc?
 Most speech that would be considered hate speech in Europe would not 
meet the prerequirement of dual criminality.

At 8:14 PM -0700 11/18/97, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>> Sorry. I was unclear. I was comparing U.S. citizens with citizens of
>> another country who are living in that country.
>>
>> If a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. is running an ISP, I would argue from
>> principle that he has a right to distribute writings (I like Jeanne's
>> bookstore analogy) penned by citizens of another country.
>But would the goverment under existing law have a right to force
>the publisher  to disclose the real identity of the one who wrote the
>inflamatory message to a foreign goverment?

No, "Congress shall make no law..." means, in most cases (*), that
bookstores, publishers, distributors, etc., cannot be compelled to request
permission about whom they may sell things to, may not be compelled to
require certificates of permission to sell material, etc.

So, getting back to the "can a law be passed against foreigners using U.S.
sites?" issue, this misses the real point. The chokepoint, or point of
control, is not enforcing U.S. laws against Germans, or Kuwaitis, or
Botswanans...it is, rather, at the bookstore, point of distribution, ISP,
publisher, etc. And it is clear that the U.S. government (and by extension,
the states) cannot compel a publisher, distributor, ISP, bookstore, etc.,
to screen purchasers, to require a license to read, etc.

(* The exceptions being for obscenity, espionage, and the usual things. I
don't agree with these exceptions, but these are the oft-debated
impingements on the First.)


> Most speech that would be considered hate speech in Europe would not
>meet the prerequirement of dual criminality.

None of it would. We in America are perfectly free to call for the killing
of all niggers, the expulsion of gypsies, and the truth about the Holocaust
myth.  (Not taht I personally believe in any of these examples.) Too bad
other countries place civil order above basic liberty.

It's time to "Just Say No" to the U.N. The John Birch Society makes more
sense every day.

--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Tim May wrote:

> It's time to "Just Say No" to the U.N. The John Birch Society makes more
> sense every day.

US out of the UN and UN out of the US.

DCF

At 07:39 AM 11/19/1997 -0600, Tim McVeigh wrote:
>Duncan Frissell wrote:
>> US out of the UN and UN out of the US.

Nah - somebody needs to stay and corrupt the UN :-)
	(As if George Bush hadn't demonstrated that it's
	clearly been bought, if not necessarily paid for...)

Besides, it's obvious that Bureaucrats are a different race,
superior to their subjects, and that the proposed UN document
is merely hate speech indicating their right to control
the inferior beings who don't have the decency to comply
with the needs of public order and public morals.
Putting the document on a European web site obviously violates
the laws it requires its fellow Burons to impose on their Peons,
but here in America we're still free to publish such tripe...
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Duncan Frissell wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Tim May wrote:
> 
> > It's time to "Just Say No" to the U.N. The John Birch Society makes more
> > sense every day.
> 
> US out of the UN and UN out of the US.
> 
> DCF

US out of the US.

TFM

At 8:29 AM -0800 1/19/90, Jonathan Gaw wrote:
>I could imagine numerous scenarios where ISPs would prefer the telephone
>company analogy of being a passive carrier, as opposed to the publisher
>model. can they have it both ways?

Bookstores. See *Cubby vs. CompuServe*.

--
Morning people may be respected, but night people are feared.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03007808b097c592eba8@[168.161.105.216]>, on 11/18/97 
   at 05:22 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:

>-Agha Shahi, a member of the  Committee on the Elimination of Racial
>Discrimination, gave a forceful opinion on how the Convention applies
>online and how countries must criminalize hate speech online.


Agha Shahi is a Statest Pig (As are most UN memebers).

Below is a list of who is on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination:

	M J Yutzis   	       *Argentina
	Hamzat Ahmadu	       *Nigeria   
	Ivan Garvalov           Bulgaria  
	Andrew Chigovera       *Zimbabwe
	Songu Shuhua           *China
	Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr     *Egypt
	Valencia Rodriguez      Ecuador 
	Michael P Banton       *UK
	Shanti Sadiq Ali       *India
	Carlos L Hevia         *Cuba 
	T Van Boven	        Netherlands
	Agha Shahi	       *Pakistan 
	E Ferrero Costa	        Peru 
	Ion Diaconu	       *Romania 
	Michael E Sherifis	Cyprus 
	Regis de Gouttes	France 
	Yuri A Rechetov	        Russian Fed. 
	Rudiger Wolfram        *Germany 
 
* Countries that have not ratified Article 14 allowing complaints from
their own citizens to the  Committee.
 
Members of the CERD Committee are elected by secret ballot from a list of
persons nominated by countries which have ratified the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

NOTE: This information is a couple of years old so there may have been
recent changes to the make-up of CERD.

Would you really trust any of these countries on a "freedom of speech"
issue? These are a bunch of statist pigs from irrelevant 3rd world
countries wishing to subvert democracy and freedom through UN charters.
Notice that most of these members woun't even be bothered with the
pretence of listening to their own citizens.

The UN is a plague on humanity.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHI33I9Co1n+aLhhAQE/yAP/fzLEFqiU2G2MqeDBhtF8SUfa++xq9GJr
xUqedn/62Q+DJbjSKXqyPCzhhWY3d8w0tuxL8HZqiR1KGvBbwYSYP7WHMWKBVm0G
ubpY0wU1+E7W8fgOZ81C/7J6p4J+DmLPs+biZFC1X8mNomT+Kz1zZzv5xFoLTII9
6DbgjpaagzE=
=+6Kl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----