[NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Sun Aug 20 20:16:10 CEST 2017 

These are content issues, which ICANN has no remit in, so hence my aversion to us bring this to a content neutral forum.

The issues people have rightly or wrongly are with the businesses involved and their TOS for service. Not with ICANN policy.

-James

From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com]
Sent: 20 August 2017 19:09
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60

I take the point of views portrayed here. I have a very simple question does shutting down domains with hate speech really help the society or the community understand? Two different ways at looking at the situation if there ware no hate speech against the govt of Egypt of even tunisia what would have happened. This all lead to government at gunpoint getting people to shut down access to internet as a whole.

This reminds me of a discussion i had in law school the subject “Hate Speech”

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.
In this country called USA and even Mauritius there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the USA First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.
Acts Speak Louder than Words
One way to deal effectively with hate speech is to create laws and policies that discourage bad behavior but do not punish bad beliefs. Another way of saying this is to create laws and policies that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or “acts.” In two recent hate crime cases, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that acts, but not speech, may be regulated by law.
Libertarian and Communitarian Perspectives
There is a range of approaches to when hate speech might be regulated. On one end is the libertarian perspective; on the other, the communitarian. In may cases the US Courts have taken the Libertarian approach.
Libertarians believe that individuals have the right to free speech and that government should be able to limit it only for the most compelling reasons. Most libertarians recognize fighting words as an example of a sufficiently compelling reason to limit free speech. Notwithstanding the libertarian viewpoint, the courts have been careful to interpret this exception narrowly.
Communitarians take a different approach. They believe that the community’s well-being is society’s most important goal and that an individual’s right to free speech may be limited in the interests of community harmony. They believe that treating people with fairness and dignity justifies at least some free-speech restrictions-that eliminating or reducing hate speech is a sufficiently compelling goal to justify government regulation. Communitarians would expand the fighting words doctrine to allow for increased government regulation.
Can a middle ground be found—a way to accommodate both the communitarian and libertarian perspectives? Perhaps so. Government has the obligation to protect speech by disallowing laws that are too restrictive, yet it can also encourage individuals to respect each other.
Here’s how one community recently approached an incidence of hate speech by calling attention to it rather than attempting to suppress it—by encouraging speech that pointed out how out of place the hate speech was in a community that values the dignity of all.
Matt Hale, a notorious racist, was recently asked to speak at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Hale is the leader of the World of the Creator, a white supremacist group. His presence on campus was controversial. Several students, faculty, and community members thought that the university should cancel his appearance. Instead, he was allowed to speak. Hale’s audience was not impressed. He came across as having a confusing set of beliefs that were out of place in a democratic, multicultural society. Several faculty and students spoke out against his message of hatred.
By allowing Hale to speak, the university recognized free speech rights but also provided a means for community members to respond. Communitarian and libertarian goals were both met.
Here’s my perspective to this. Free will free speech as what we as human beings are made of. Am not saying that closing down a nazi hate speech domain is going to stop these from continuing. I know of dark websites which has been doing these for years. Yet they can’t be shut down. I am for an between policy thought if we need to think. But it is still ongoing and another question i point out is then what about when governments shut down the internet for unreasonable causes. India has done that 27 times. Way further we know so many countries who shut down the internet so that the population is blacked out. Cameroon is another case where the english speaking part was blacked out and this is atrocity people could not even send money to their siblings in need.

Is ICANN the court to decide? Or how will one define a policy that will find the middle ground?

Yo be honest i wanted to respond earlier but i thought it over and mustered over and over then decided to share. I am against no one but i like to see proper discussions and finding the balance in everything. its a hard battle i admit but i would like t see the outcome of such a discussion.

My two cents…..


On Aug 20, 2017, at 9:37 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Well for those of us who don’t work in activism how we are portrayed, or how the organisations (Such as NCUC) that we affiliate ourselves with are portrayed are 100% how I base my decisions on continued association.

-James

-----Original Message-----
From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
Sent: 20 August 2017 17:36
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60

That escalated quickly. I don't think the statement by EFF is interpreted that way. Am a bit surprised that people would base their decisions on how a fringe group portrays them.

For some more reading on the issue a selection of articles from Berkman:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/harmfulspeech

On 08/20/2017 06:29 PM, James Gannon wrote:

Be very careful here guys, the minute that this session is rebranded
as why the NCUC thinks that Nazis should have been left online, which
is exactly how this session will be branded by the alt-right, is the
minute you will see half of your membership resign, myself included.

-James

-----Original Message----- From: Ncuc-discuss
[mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Kathy
Kleiman Sent: 20 August 2017 17:06 To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate
speech at ICANN 60

That's great, Niels, but I think it is also a very important session
for NCUC to have as well (NCUC and/or NCSG).  There are a range of
pending policy issues -- in ICANN and just outside of ICANN -- that we
need not only to discuss, but to start formulating plans and
strategies.

Termination of domain names -- via lack of due process, private
copyright law and private trademark law -- are all very much issues
that the Noncommercial Community needs to be ready for in statements,
comments and positions to come.  The more we work on this issue the
better.

BTW, these are issues -- especially termination of domain names
without due process -- that go back to the very founding of the NCUC
and our earliest work on the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP) which was "consensus policy #1" in ICANN. We fought for a
policy grounded in intellectual property laws **and legal protections
for free expression and due process.** With so many similar issues now
on the table, this is our NCUC moment to continue to serve as the
conscience of ICANN.

Best, Kathy


On 8/20/2017 3:36 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Hi all,

Perhaps we can probably make some time in the CCWP HR / human rights
session for this? Would that work for people?

Best,

Niels

On 08/19/2017 02:16 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:

Hi,

In case it is helpful, please find attached the preliminary block
schedule for ICANN 60.

It is really a shame we cannot have this discussion as a
cross-community High Interest Topic at ICANN 60. I think that would
be the best place for this dialogue to take place.
Nonetheless, I count myself among those who would welcome this
conversation taking place on Constituency Day.

And Jeremy, thanks for sharing that excellent statement on content
removal and noting what a blunt instrument the suspension of a
domain name is. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.
You don't take human rights away from people just because you hate
them or their views. It's kind of shocking to me how quickly some
have been to throw these fundamental principles of liberalism into
the bonfire.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>



-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS]
Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60 Local
Time: 19 August 2017 3:49 AM UTC Time: 19 August 2017
02:49 From: dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net> To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

I would support this discussion taking place. I find the NCSG
agenda is usually a bit more open, and NCUC agenda often pretty
packed.

David


On 18 Aug 2017, at 7:48 am, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20 %0b%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>> wrote:

Hello all,

EFF has just posted its thoughts on the GoDaddy and Google
termination of the Daily Stormer's domain:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-fr
e

e-expression


This would be a timely topic to address in more detail at ICANN
60. I will be attending and would like to be able to find some
time to talk about this and also about the recent EFF and Public
Knowledge whitepaper "Which Internet registries offer the best
protection for domain owners?
<https://www.eff.org/wp/which-internet-registries-offer-best-protection-domain-owners>".


What are the avenues for holding such a presentation?  Is there

already a block of time for NCSG where this would fit in, or
should a separate session be requested?  If so can anyone point me
to the information about how to do this?  Sorry, I'm a little
behind on the logistics of ICANN meetings because I seldom attend
in person.

Thanks.

-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier
Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key:
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP
fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF
1122 _______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss


_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>

  *   www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170820/5f2419f3/attachment.html>

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list