We aren’t talking here about leaders suppressing speech, if the country has split power, what I’m talking is about courts acting independently of the government to apply laws. In this specific case, it was that way: Court order not Government.
Again, take the example of the child pornography. A court order bans it. Is that against freedom of speech? Is ISOC going to say that?
Here we have a similar case. Let me copy the text I responded in private to someone else:
“No, what I’m arguing is that ISOC trust .CAT folks and not having talked with the other Spanish ISOC chapters to verify it, instead of going to read the court order.
My point here is not the Catalonia problem, is a general statement to make in the ISOC “rules” that ISOC MUST not interfere with court orders, unless they can verify what is being said at the court order.
In this case, the court order indicated a list of very specific unlawful sites, but ISOC published that it was a global order to .cat to ban any political sites. It is a big difference. Our constitution doesn’t enable splitting the country and consequently a voting on that, was declared against law by our constitutional court, which ordered the police to avoid it (same way the police must avoid any other criminal or unlawful act, is their duty). Our constitution allows to be amended, but Catalonia Government don’t want that, they want to make sure they split and do at their own way, regardless only 25% of the Catalonian want that (which is only 5% of the total country population!).
Not sure if that's clearer.”
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: miércoles, 1 de noviembre de 2017, 2:18
Para: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:47 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In other words, the society will only comment on law orders in "undemocratic countries". Isn't it up to the society's Board of Trustees to decide about that?
No, as I said earlier (perhaps it's futile to repeat, but wth), democracy depends on the ability of the electorate to speak about and understand the issues being decided. So when a nominally democratic country attempts to censor the internet, it makes sense to protest. This is the whole point of having laws, and particularly laws that protect freedom of speech. It's quite commonplace for democratically elected leaders to attempt to suppress speech, because it is often inconvenient for them. This is normal. If we were to not protest when such attempts at suppression occurred, it would be normal for them to succeed. That is why it makes sense to protest.
Protesting an attempt to suppress speech is not something that only needs to be done un non-democratic countries; indeed, in non-democratic countries, it's somewhat futile.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.