UN Broadcasting Treaty May Restrict Speech

ashshy writes "A UN treaty under proposal could lead to unprecedented restrictions on free speech and fair use rights around the world. Ars Technica pulls together what you need to know from multiple sources." From the article: "The proposed broadcasting treaty would create entirely new global rights for broadcasting companies who have neither created nor own the programming. What's even more alarming is the proposal from the United States that the treaty regulate the Internet transmission of audio and video entertainment. It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."

You cannot create rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are by default. "Creating rights" means lifting bans, not the other way around.

So the UN is relevant now? I'm confused.

[smooth wombat]

First we say the UN is irrelevant and we won't send any of our people to the UN International Court of Justice because the UN has no authority over us.

But, then we say that the UN gave us the ok to invade another country.

However, then we say that the head of UN is corrupt and the whole system needs to be replaced.

But now we're asking this corrupt body who has no authority over us to impose rules on other countries and how they transmit items over the net and elsewhere.

Someone stop the spinning! I'm gonna throw up!

Re:Um, exactly.

[fussili]

Depends on the state/situation. I'll simplify things because you don't really need to know all the law and only weirdos like me find constitutional law interesting. Some 'international' legislation is enacted immediately (for instance, in France European legislation of a certain type is automatically a part of French law), however for the most part, there is almost no chance that 'International law' (the phrase itself is an anathema and complete and utter crap btw, anyone who mentions it needs their heads examined or their phony law degree torn up) can be relied upon in domestic courts. There are however situations in which some international agreements would have some legal force. For instance, in the courts of England and Wales there is a presumption at law that Her Majesty's government intends to honour its treaty obligations - a presumption relied upon heavily in the past 20 years as the House of Lords has gone about carving its own Human Right's jurisprudence. As for this resolution however, any assertion made that it will be applicable or enforceable in domestic courts is laughable. In the United Kingdom, as I presume it would be in US courts which are markedly slow to consider international agreements as having any legal force.

The Smell of Desperation.

[alphasubzero949]

The traditional mass media is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day thanks to the advent of blogs, podcasts, independent music, and films. You can bet your bottom dollar that the conglomerates have been looking for ways to thwart this "revolution" in mass media and get pieces of the pie - albeit unsuccessfully. This is the **AA's "last stand" - if you will - on a global scale because they want that control back and will do anything by any means necessary.

Seriously, how are they going to crack down? File John Doe lawsuits in Albania?

Get real.

The problem with too many fronts

[jmorris42]

This is a real problem. We have to fend off the US Congress, the FCC (they will be back, Congressional authority or no), the EU, the UN, etc. and as soon as we defeat one attempt another is introduced. We have to win every battle, they to win once. One step is to cut the number of fronts. Just oen more reason to burn the UN building to the ground and send those idiots home.

The UN is useless anyway so it isn't like it wouldn't be a good thing all around. The indisputable fact that it is a 'Parliment of Tyrants' where the unfree votes outnumber the Free by a goodly margin is only mitigated slightly by the fact that the instituition is incapable of action on major issues. But as this attempt makes clear they do have a great potential for mischief on less visible issues, especially when you get a perfect storm of agreement between third world pestholes wanting to control their people and the 1st world wanting to let their **AA organizations control their subjects.

Inappropriate? I'll tell you inappropriate

[dada21]

It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting.

It is also dangerous and inappropriate for even elected national officials to undertake the task of destroying rights they are specifically not allowed to destroy (see Constititution, definition of "no law" means "no law").

The rights of the people are best protected when regulations are created and enforced close to home. The International government has no rights to give preferential treatment to one person or party over another. The bigger that government is the, less it should do to try to level any playing field. In the long run, more power at the upper levels of government are almost always abused to create paternalism and cartelization, not to actually protect rights.

Our own Congress in the U.S. has overstepped their bounds with the FCC and the myriad of unconstitutional laws affecting speech. These laws, if wanted by the people per the 9th and 10th amendments, are better suited for the state or the village to create and enforce.

The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level -- it was written to give Congress the power to penalize states that infringe on a person's right to trade freely with other states within the union of states. Don't read more into simple words than is necessary.

The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them. What other people want to do in other countries, states or even cities is none of my business: I have no desire to prevent them from harming themselves or encouraging them to be lazy by paying for their failures. The UN is the epitome of wealth transfer and power transfer, and if you look at the corruption that has occurred that we know about, it only makes me wonder what corruptions have occurred that we don't know about.

Congress shall make no law...

[tepples]

True, but "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Doesn't this mean that the Senate shall enact no such treaty?

Why yes, it is unelected.

[Distinguished Hero]

"It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."

So, someone has finally noticed that the UN is unelected. Quite interesting how nobody seems to mention that when they agree with what the UN is doing.

Re:Congress shall make no law...

[OrangeTide]

Bingo. Although it is against the law to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room. And it's against the law to publish copyright protected works without permission, and it's against the law to make up lies about people that damage their reputation. So "freedom of speech" has some limits.

The senate cannot violate constitutional rights, treaty or no. When you agree to a treaty you generally just agree to make the contents of the treaty a law in your country. If you do not manage to make the treaty legally binding in your jurisdiction then the treaty is not ratified (much to the annoyance of treaty cosigners).

Defending your rights

[Nom du Keyboard]

Without the ability to defend your rights, you have no rights.

Without the ability to defend yourself, you have no Constitutionally protected right of self-defense.

Only when they silence the First Amendment, will you need the Second Amendment.

The Internet has been the most democratic invention in human history. Anyone who can get on it has a potential world-wide voice, which is why some countries censor it to heavily. But they can't censor it in secret. So who are these clowns at the UN, and how do we get them thrown out?
[/soapbox]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The UN is just so 20th century

[gstoddart]

I mean, seriously, it's a club for sad old socialists and communists who are still dreaming that they'll one day run the world. Why didn't we close it down years ago?

What is with you Americans and this view of the UN? It is the only framework we have for having nations try and work together peacefully, and establish the way they'll play together. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than saying "fuck it, just invade anyone you wish".

You'd think that Bush would at least have the balls to kick them out of New York.

Well, it was the US who helped to create the UN, after they said the League of Nations was no longer relevant. You can't throw away the only even remotely-functionaly international treaty organization every time you feel like throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your own way.

The US uses the UN to give them legitimacy when it suits them, and flagrantly disregards the fact that's a signatory to some of those treaties when they wish.

Walk away from it, and you could find yourselves a pariah state, and your relationships with your allies could become rather tenuous. Although, they've been becoming tenuous over the last few years due to the protectionism/xenophobia your leaders are putting forth to the rest of the world.

Le't hope America doesn't decide it want to go it alone so it can become the asshole/bully of the world -- though we see shades of that now.

Re:American influence

[DAldredge]

If it is just the USA that wants this then Europe should have no trouble getting it removed...

Right?

Re:Inappropriate? I'll tell you inappropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got off the phone with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. He would like me to remind you that he 'kicked their secessionist asses' and to 'not let them forget it'.

Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.

Re:Um, exactly.

[QMO]

I guess that's true. Look at Saddaam Houssein. He defied the UN for years and got away with it. A different group of nations (who happen to be members of the UN) finally got sick of it, but the UN itself pretty much did nothing nothing.

Moral: Unless the US gets mad, the worst you have to fear from the UN is talk.

Re:You cannot create rights

[Dachannien]

Actually, the default state is that the only "rights" you have are the ones you can physically defend for yourself. The concept of basic rights only comes about because societies collectively protect those rights, in essence creating them.

That said, society can also take rights away without abdicating those rights to the default state, and that's probably a better description of what's intended with this treaty.

Re:Treaties don't "just become law"...

[taustin]

Treaties in the US are of equal authority to the Constitution, according to the Constitution. They cannot, however, supersede it, so a treaty cannot violate the first amendment.

Plus, so far as I know, as with most nation, even once it's ratified, it still needs enabling legislation.

Looks to me like the US is sponsoring a treaty that can never be implemented in the US. Perhaps a way of making sure other nations can't compete with us.

To hell with the UN.

[MaWeiTao]

The fact that the UN refuses to recognize a legitimately free nation like Taiwan is evidence enough that the organization is full of shit.

Re:Did anybody RTFA?

[hanshotfirst]

If you think this is unlikely, remember that if you make up a song and sing it without writing it down or recording it, you have no US rights to that song.

Dude, take your chill-pills and review the basic premise of copyright. It is the right to copy something. If you never write it down or record it, there is nothing to copy. Others can repeat your song-passed-along-verbally as much as they want without any promise of compensation to you. Conversely, you can sing any song you want (as long as you don't record it or write it down) no matter who holds copyright for no charge.

In the US the creator of the work holds the exclusive right to copy that work as soon as it is created. The can, of course assign that right to other parties. The established method for letting everyone else know that you created it and care about who copies it is to register that copyright. In other words, creation of a printed or recorded work automatically assigns copyright, however, if there is an argument over who created what (when), you must have registered that copyright in advance to settle a dispute.

Re:You cannot create rights

[deblau]

Rights can be created, usually by the State. For instance, the right to vote. Probably no one here, but some would argue that owning property is a State-granted right. (If you don't believe me, try to buy urban land in China.) How about the right to get equal treatment based on race, color, gender, ancestry, or age? How about the right to an education? The right to medical treatment? You aren't born with any of those.

Re:Congress shall make no law (Article Six)..

[Maxo-Texas]

I think this part of Article six applies:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So yes, once we sign a treaty- it becomes law at the level of the constitution, overriding state laws- not sure about federal laws.

Re:To hell with the UN.

[vidarh]

The UN is the sum of its member states, nothing more, nothing less. What the UN is good at or bad at mainly reflects that too.

The problem is that the alternatives are worse: You could dissolve it, of course, but then you would remove a useful organ for peaceful cooperation. You could strengthen it, but that would mean for nations to hand over part of their sovereignty to a body where their enemies and rivals have power too. As it stands, the UN is largely what it can be - it has power where most countries agree, and it has none where there is widespread controversy.

Judging the UN with unrealistic expectations is pointless. Judge its actions on the basis that it is an organisation comitted to bringing together nations regardless of their forms of governments, and regardless if they are oppressive dictatorships. In light of the huge differences between the member states it's a wonder the UN manages to accomplish anything at all.

Re:Inappropriate? I'll tell you inappropriate

[robertjw]

Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.

Hey, the South will Rise again!

Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all. Damage was done there, but it was really FDR and his New Deal that drove the final nail in the coffin. Income Tax, Social Security, the Federal Reserve. These things all gave the federal government the power and funding it needed to exert greater control over the states.

Re:You cannot create rights

[Dachannien]

But in the default state, there is no legal doctrine, no Constitution, no real society. If you are unable to protect yourself and establish rights for yourself physically, then you get eaten by lions or clubbed to death by Thog who lives in the cave next door. The entire point of society - and government, its organized manifestation - is that rights which you cannot protect for yourself are created and defended for you.

Without society, you can climb up on a rock and declare your right to free speech, but if I don't like what you're saying and I decide to kill you because of it, then ultimately, you were gravely mistaken. Society creates the right to free speech and grants it to you by defending you physically from any disapproval and wrath I might have.

And yes, even "basic human rights" [un.org] are meaningless without a society to defend them for you. Universal declarations of human rights may look good on paper, but they mean nothing to millions of Sudanese whose society failed them, for example.