Belarus government blocking social media sites...

#26
#26
utvolpj said:
my comment was not about the access it was about your human right part. The UN making any comment on human rights is funny though
Click to expand...

Legit question, have you ever considered what your own personal view of human rights is? Not asking for a detailed list, and I'm specifically speaking outside the context of any sort of international organization or law, just wondering if you have considered such a thing.
 
#28
#28
Vol_4_Life said:
Why do you care if someone in Belarus isn't allowed on FB?
Click to expand...

I've taken an interest in the economic and governmental development of former SSR's, and in general I prefer to pay attention to developments outside my own little corner of the world and not be such a hobbit.
 
#29
#29
milohimself said:
I've taken an interest in the economic and governmental development of former SSR's, and in general I prefer to pay attention to developments outside my own little corner of the world and not be such a hobbit.
Click to expand...


That's where we differ, I guess. I have no interest if the issue at hand in no way involves or affects the USA.
 
#30
#30
milohimself said:
I've taken an interest in the economic and governmental development of former SSR's, and in general I prefer to pay attention to developments outside my own little corner of the world and not be such a hobbit.
Click to expand...

I can tell you this much.

Belorus has maintained more of a stalinist style
government than any of the former republics
of the now defunct soviet union.

'Belo' (pronounced 'byeh-loh') means 'white', hence
the oft used term white Russia.

Belorusia was also the place where some of Iraq's
wmds were shipped prior to our invasion to overthrow
Hussein.
 
#32
#32
The one thing I've noticed since the protests during Iran's election protests and on into the Egypt and Libyan uprisings as well: I was genuinely shocked at how jacked in the people in these countries were. I always thought that it was like China: one giant firewall.

With that said I do agree with the UN's assertion that access to information is a basic human right. It's the exact same as freedom of speech (instead of printing on paper or getitng on a soapbox you are doing it digitally but still the same principle in my mind). However when you have someone like China on your human rights board your credibility is still nill in my mind. And by access I mean the availability of it... not that everyone is entitled to a free web connection.
 
#33
#33
OrangeYankee said:
With that said I do agree with the UN's assertion that access to information is a basic human right. It's the exact same as freedom of speech (instead of printing on paper or getitng on a soapbox you are doing it digitally but still the same principle in my mind). However when you have someone like China on your human rights board your credibility is still nill in my mind. And by access I mean the availability of it... not that everyone is entitled to a free web connection.
Click to expand...

.
 
#34
#34
milohimself said:
Well the folks in the Bush II admin sure do suck for not pointing that out to us.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The media could have also covered that
information which wasn't too hard to find.

Some also went to Syria and eventually it fell to the
Israelis to destroy the site with an air strike.

That certainly wasn't the only shortcoming of the
Bush II administration.
 
#35
#35
gsvol said:
I can tell you this much.

Belorus has maintained more of a stalinist style
government than any of the former republics
of the now defunct soviet union.

'Belo' (pronounced 'byeh-loh') means 'white', hence
the oft used term white Russia.

Belorusia was also the place where some of Iraq's
wmds were shipped prior to our invasion to overthrow
Hussein.
Click to expand...

Proof?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
Would freedom of speech not qualify under liberty? Would denial of internet access not qualify as a denial of free speech?
 
#38
#38
I know I'm biased but I would imagine every American feels this way, but pretty much everything in the original Bill of Rights are what I'd consider "basic human rights" that all countries should adopt. Which FYI if you are keeping score at home includes freedom of speech.
 
#40
#40
Right vs privilege I guess. Making it a human right would require governments to provide access. More important things on the table, imo.
 
#41
#41
Liberty? I can govern myself? Then communication is a basic right, iyam. Be that by telephone, smoke signal, or Facebook.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
VOLatile said:
Liberty? I can govern myself? Then communication is a basic right, iyam. Be that by telephone, smoke signal, or Facebook.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

you can continue to broaden the definition as you like, but it isn't about freedom of speech. You could make the same absurd argument to support the idea that we should all have access to a news camera to be heard, but it's equally silly. You have the right to say what you feel, not the right to the capacity to broadcast it or read it in any manner you see fit.
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
you can continue to broaden the definition as you like, but it isn't about freedom of speech. You could make the same absurd argument to support the idea that we should all have access to a news camera to be heard, but it's equally silly. You have the right to say what you feel, not the right to the capacity to broadcast it or read it in any manner you see fit.
Click to expand...

Public access tv...
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
Would freedom of speech not qualify under liberty? Would denial of internet access not qualify as a denial of free speech?
Click to expand...

It's just a general denial of liberty. To me it doesn't matter if it falls under free speech, or religion, or association, etc. Denial of internet access is a gross violation of freedom. A government that favors an educated populace will not deny people the internet. A government that fears an educated populace will ban the internet.

We have a kill switch, btw.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
Governments should be under no requirement to provide every citizen with the Internet. With that said, blocking access to useful communication channels that would otherwise be available (blocking twitter) could be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech. This is always a fuzzy line, and isn't a clear violation such as throwing a guy in jail for speaking out against you. However, I think of it being a lot like shutting down all private newspapers because you don't like what some of them are saying about you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
^^ I don't think anybody is advocating that governments anywhere should actually be required to provide interwebs to anybody, just arguing against blocking communications, as you said.
 
#48
#48
BigPapaVol said:
No
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Now that I've thought about it, I don't know how it couldn't be considered denial of free speech. If you ban the platform where people speak, you are denying free speech. It would be the same if they were banning newspapers, TV, the telephone, etc. I would argue that banning the internet is a much more blatant denial of free speech than banning newspapers. More information is consumed on the internet than in newspapers.
 
#49
#49
nbakerld said:
It's just a general denial of liberty. To me it doesn't matter if it falls under free speech, or religion, or association, etc. Denial of internet access is a gross violation of freedom. A government that favors an educated populace will not deny people the internet. A government that fears an educated populace will ban the internet.

We have a kill switch, btw.
Click to expand...

I don't see FB/Twitter as making a more educated person

Rasputin_Vol said:
You have a right to your life, liberty and the right to earn a living.
Click to expand...

I would say to provide for your family but earn a living works
 
#50
#50
nbakerld said:
Now that I've thought about it, I don't know how it couldn't be considered denial of free speech. If you ban the platform where people speak, you are denying free speech. It would be the same if they were banning newspapers, TV, the telephone, etc. I would argue that banning the internet is a much more blatant denial of free speech than banning newspapers. More information is consumed on the internet than in newspapers.
Click to expand...

I don't see their speech being denied. Does VN limit your freedoms by censoring certain words and pictures?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top