Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The slippery slope argument is a straw man.

The primary diplomatic function of the U.N. is laying down specific guidelines for international conduct, so that there's no more arguing about what constitutes a violation of a specific treaty.

For example, suppose Ukrageria says, "But Zimbraqistan stationed 14 battleships outside of our port, that's an act of war," and Zimbraqistan counters, "But we just want them to lift the 200% tariff on Zimbraqistanian goods." The U.N. has specifically said that free access to ports is a sovereign right, so that resolves this dispute and gives Ukrageria international support for a declaration of war against Zimbraqistan.

Similarly, some countries have criticized Egypt for disconnecting its citizens from the global internet. Egypt in turn counters that their citizens still can express their opinions and speak freely so it's not a human rights violation. The purpose of the U.N.'s resolution is to resolve this dispute and clarify that freedom of expression must include international communication over the internet.



Right, before they did it everybody thought "freedom of speech" meant only that you can use your actual voice freely. But now everybody knows you can also use Twitter! So what about using printed media? Radiowaves? Phone communications? Should we wait for UN to explain us about that too? For anybody seriously considering the question it mus be obvios the question is not in the means of expression and freedom of speech was never meant to be restricted to exercising one's vocal cords.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: