UN declares online freedom to be a human right that must be protected

[jos]

<quote>

UN declares online freedom to be a human right that must be protected

A new resolution from the UN comdemns countries that deliberately disrupt the internet access of their citizens 

Emma Boyle 

7 hours  ago

0 comments

The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution for the “promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the internet” which condemns any country that intentionally disrupts the internet access of its citizens. 

The resolution stresses that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online” particularly with regards to the freedom of expression already protected by articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Though it was passed by consensus, the resolution was opposed by a small number of countries including Russia and China who wished to make a number of amendments, in particular aiming to delete calls for a "human rights based approach" for providing and expanding access to the internet and remove key references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and language on freedom of expression from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</quote>

 

The United Nations Human Rights Council(UNHRC) is a United Nations System inter-governmental body whose 47 member states are responsible for promoting and protecting human rights around the world. 

Source: Link

[21rkosta]

in other news china leaves the UN for breaking its rules?

[samcool55]

Umm they haven't declared anything.

What they did do is have a vote that resulted with a majority agreeing that it should be a human right.

But for now that isn't the case. What it can do tho is put pressure so it eventually does become a human right.

 

What they did wasn't binding so nothing changed. It only gave a view about how they think about it.

[Indus Monk]

Do countries even take UN seriously?

[Indus Monk]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes, actually.  

 

There are laws and cooperation they have to follow.

kk

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

Do countries even take UN seriously?

Most do but the issue is that some countries have veto afaik like russia and america.

So if a majority agrees with something and for example america does too, but if russia doesn't like it they just use their veto and nothing happens.

 

That's at least how i think it usually goes...

[AresKrieger]

The question is do they think all speech online should be protected, because I highly doubt it, also this doesn't have any weight behind it besides if the UN actually tried to make this an actual decree China and Russia would veto it.

5 minutes ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

Do countries even take UN seriously?

No, not really. Especially not the countries with veto power

[Indus Monk]

2 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Most do but the issue is that some countries have veto afaik like russia and america.

So if a majority agrees with something and for example america does too, but if russia doesn't like it they just use their veto and nothing happens.

 

That's at least how i think it usually goes...

That is 90% correct!

 

UN (as of now) has 5 permanent members, and all of them have veto power. These are:

 

Russia

USA

UK (they may exit)

France

China

 

But, AFAIK, there has to be some sort of majority there... Butt it's a victim of it's own creation. It's HQ is in USA, it's biggest fundraiser is USA, and it's most powerful member is USA! If USA, loses interest in UN, then the UN can collapse easily or become insignificant...

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

That depends on what is being said.  

This is true, however I haven't heard much of importance that one of the permanent security council members didn't have a problem with.

[Izumi Reina]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes, actually.  

 

There are laws and cooperation they have to follow.

'have to follow' really to bigger countries its more of suggestions.

The U.S even used their security council position to remove themselves from the U.N International Court to avoid being condemned for their actions around the world.

[AresKrieger]

10 minutes ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

 

But, AFAIK, there has to be some sort of majority there... Butt it's a victim of it's own creation. It's HQ is in USA, it's biggest fundraiser is USA, and it's most powerful member is USA! If USA, loses interest in UN, then the UN can collapse easily or become insignificant...

I can tell you the US public has certainly lost interest from my point of view, and I doubt the government cares for any reason beyond having an indirect arm to abuse its enemies with(besides China and Russia of course)

[Indus Monk]

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I can tell you the US public has certainly lost interest from my point of view, and I doubt the government cares for any reason beyond having an indirect arm to abuse its enemies with(besides China and Russia of course)

kk

[samcool55]

11 minutes ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

That is 90% correct!

 

UN (as of now) has 5 permanent members, and all of them have veto power. These are:

 

Russia

USA

UK (they may exit)

France

China

 

But, AFAIK, there has to be some sort of majority there... Butt it's a victim of it's own creation. It's HQ is in USA, it's biggest fundraiser is USA, and it's most powerful member is USA! If USA, loses interest in UN, then the UN can collapse easily or become insignificant...

Do you maybe know why the UK and France have veto?

I would have expected Germany and Japan to have it but they don't...

[Centurius]

19 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Most do but the issue is that some countries have veto afaik like russia and america.

So if a majority agrees with something and for example america does too, but if russia doesn't like it they just use their veto and nothing happens.

 

That's at least how i think it usually goes...

Only on matters that concern the Security Council which tend to be the high profile ones. The bulk, and at their core some of the most important things the UN does, are voted on in the General Assembly where veto doesn't exist.

[3DOSH]

23 minutes ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

Do countries even take UN seriously?

Nope,  look at the whole middle east 

[Centurius]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Do you maybe know why the UK and France have veto?

I would have expected Germany and Japan to have it but they don't...

The permanent members of the UN Security Council were the victorious powers in WW2, ie. USA, USSR, France, the United Kingdom and at the time the Republic of China whose seat was handed over to the PRC

[samcool55]

2 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Only on matters that concern the Security Council which tend to be the high profile ones. The bulk, and at their core some of the most important things the UN does, are voted on in the General Assembly where veto doesn't exist.

Well then it isn't as bad as i thought it was

I don't know much about it tbh, should know more about it but oh well, priorities

[thekeemo]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes and no.

 

The UN was established in 1945.

 

The middle east has always been the "f u" department between France, UK, US, and Russia.  When one would arm one side the other would arm the other.  This is exactly why the Vietnam war happened, even though that's not in that part of Asia.  They do take it seriously, now compared to back then.  The US is the one who always breaks the rules still, and that's why Russia keeps threatening us.  Kinda ironic that Putin is the one wanting to follow the rules, though considering his stance on the Cold War.

The USA and the UK always gets a Carte Blanche nothing new there

[samcool55]

2 minutes ago, Centurius said:

The permanent members of the UN were the victorious powers in WW2, ie. USA, USSR, France, the United Kingdom and at the time the Republic of China whose seat was handed over to the PRC

I'm not familiar with the whole UN thing but i think giving veto to countries based on the outcome of WW2 doesn't make much sense anymore.

It probably did when WW2 just ended, but for now i don't know, it should depend on other things, i don't know much about law and stuff soo i don't know what would be a good idea... Maybe financial or criminal relative numbers? I don't know 

[Centurius]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

I'm not familiar with the whole UN thing but i think giving veto to countries based on the outcome of WW2 doesn't make much sense anymore.

It probably did when WW2 just ended, but for now i don't know, it should depend on other things, i don't know much about law and stuff soo i don't know what would be a good idea... Maybe financial or criminal relative numbers? I don't know 

A large amount of countries agree with you which is why they have been talking about changing the system for years now, but for understandable reasons there are a lot of interests who would prefer the status quo.

[3DOSH]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes and no.

 

The UN was established in 1945.

 

The middle east has always been the "f u" department between France, UK, US, and Russia.  When one would arm one side the other would arm the other.  This is exactly why the Vietnam war happened, even though that's not in that part of Asia.  They do take it seriously, now compared to back then.  The US is the one who always breaks the rules still, and that's why Russia keeps threatening us.  Kinda ironic that Putin is the one wanting to follow the rules, though considering his stance on the Cold War.

Israel is daily violating Lebanon air space with jets and spy planes with no reaction from the UN what so ever. Lebanon dose nothing to justify this behavior.  I say USA and Israel could care less.  

Like Dave Chappelle said in his Black Bush skit. 

Spoiler

UN you should sanction me with your army, oh wait you don't have an army well i guess you need to shut the fuck up. 

 

[Misanthrope]

So we can now call the UN on Comcast? Sweet!

[3DOSH]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

True, but Russia wants everyone to follow the rules....I find that funny.

When you are one of great powers in the world rules mean nothing. As history shows

[c00face]

The UN was created for a purpose, and that was to stop another World War, or tensions between countries. Who hold power in the UN was the result of those who won the war. Like it or not, you can't just go changing the policy of the UN without consequences. Doing so can and will collapse the UN, resulting in tensions between countries which defeats the whole purpose. It's understandable that most countries don't appreciate how it is now, but every country can't have equal power, and that's just bottom line. It has been proven numerous times in American history of what happens when you give states equal power, it nullify the Federal, giving it less power. And it was the same reason we had to throw away the Articles of Confederation to make a new form of Government that will give the Federal more power (the Constitution.)

 

Nothing will ever get done if every country has veto power. Everyone will just veto each other, and it'll just be useless meetings after meetings. The UN getting involved in "online freedom" makes no sense to me. They have no business with such matter, it should be left up to each individual government to decide what happens on their own turf. It's not even their job to regulate such things. But that's another topic on its own about why the UN is going off boundaries. For cream and cookies, this is how Obama abused his power as President by side stepping Congress, he avoids the judicial system by going to the UN.

[Guest Kloaked]

2 hours ago, AmbarChakrabarti said:

Do countries even take UN seriously?

Nobody should in my opinion. They gave Anita Sarkeesian and what's her name a hearing, and that's all you should know about how productive the UN are.