I merely said that not all governments act in the best interests of their citizens, and I did not (and do not) make a binary distinction between “good” and “bad” governments – that was your contribution in your following response. It should be fairly clear that I am arguing that governments vary in their responsiveness to citizens, and that “the trick is to strike the right balance depending on the particulars of any situation – and not to imagine that the balance struck in one country is in any way relevant to another country.”

I feel that free speech, just like any other right, will always be limited by the extent of other people’s rights. There is no such thing as an absolute right. As a friend of mine once expressed it: my right to swing my arms is limited by your right to position your nose.

Your friend was misquoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins” – Holmes of course also being the judge who wrote the opinion in Schenk vs United States. The Schenk decision has been superceded by Brandenburg vs Ohio (I believe), as part of which ruling Douglas pointed out that “The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.” The law of the United States is not the final word on how we should conduct ourselves anywhere except the United States, of course, but this is exactly my position. Government has no role to play in telling people how to think, speak or write – SMS included, since it does not strike anybody on the nose.

We have flown far from the topic at hand, which is whether unspecified “safeguards” can or should be put in place to ensure that ICT is used for empowering and not repressive purposes. My answer to that is “no”, because I believe that free and open communications are frequently the best defense against the sort of speech that you would seek to ban; because I don’t believe that it is possible to implement safeguards against “repressive purposes” without adversely affecting “empowering” purposes; and because in many countries around the world such safeguards would offer too much power to governments over their citizens’ right to free speech. Government regulation should address the provision of communication technology, but not how that technology is used.

Hoewver I think these examples do support my point that it is possible to do away with formal social regulation (traffic signs) if you have the informal social regulation that ensures that people don’t drive on both sides of the road.

Not at all! The road rules are not in the least informal but highly codified and are very much enforced by police — in fact, more so there than here in Australia, where there is a speed sign on about every street corner. The signs are not the regulation; they are just reminders, and the only thing that this example shows is that too many reminders only serve to detract from the central message. This is about communication, not regulation.

By all means you may use this other definition, but you should make that clear at the start of the discussion – otherwise you’ll be misunderstood.

Yes, I totally agree. I can only say that there are extenuating circumstances, notably that I worked for many years in a field (business assurance) where this use of the word ‘repressive’ was common. A lesson learned, here.

I’m personally opposed to all constraints on free speech (e.g. I don’t believe there is good reason).

I guess this is were the bedrock of our difference of opinion shows up. I feel that free speech, just like any other right, will always be limited by the extent of other people’s rights. There is no such thing as an absolute right. As a friend of mine once expressed it: my right to swing my arms is limited by your right to position your nose. Or to put it differently: “[w]ho will meet the duties required to honour rights if members of society see themselves only as holders of rights?” (SR Benatar). Perhaps the Trieste Carta of Human Duties might be a good place to have a look.

… but that is not a justification for preventing people from communicating in the first place …

Again, this comes back to our totally different ideological starting points. BTW: do you realise that (as far as I know) there is no single state on earth that practices such a far-reaching concept of free speech? Even the USA, which is often seen as a bastion of free speech, has preventive safeguards on communications — see e.g. Schenck v United States for an example.

I think this argument relies on an artificial distinction between “good” (which act in the best interests of the citizenry) and “bad” regimes (which don’t)

Exactly my point. Please consider that you were the one to bring up that distinction (in your posting of 8.14 AM yesterday). And since that distinction is artificial, limitations on the use of technology should a priori be allowed to all regimes.

… (with the possible exception of DPR Korea) all regimes take an active interest in how they are perceived externally

Again, agreed. However, the question is how far that ‘active interest’ goes. Sudan might be slightly more amenable to external pressure than the DPRK, but it would still need considerable pressure to get them to budge on this, and I would rather see that pressure being exerted for other causes, e.g. the right to life and health for its citizens. And remember that even the current regime in the USA has been remarkably resistant to international pressure regarding human rights issues, so how much more so would a country like Sudan be?

I don’t see how you can interpret these statements as an argument that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies.

I don’t. I literally said: ‘… regulate communication technologies to their liking‘ [emphasis added].

When people talk about repressive governments, they mean it in the sense that I use it. By all means you may use this other definition, but you should make that clear at the start of the discussion – otherwise you’ll be misunderstood.

I do understand your argument, but I think the crux is in your use of the expression ‘direct harm’ (emphasis added). What is direct and what is indirect? E.g. if I incite hatred I do no direct harm, nobody dies or is injured by it, yet this is criminal behaviour in almost any country, and with good reason.

I’m personally opposed to all constraints on free speech (e.g. I don’t believe there is good reason). However there is a difference between inciting hatred and inciting people to commit specific criminal acts. In the latter case, there is clearly an actionable offense – but that is not a justification for preventing people from communicating in the first place, which is what the original post was talking about in terms of “safeguards”.

I do so because for countries where this is not the case, this whole discussion is useless, because these regimes (on the whole) don’t give a fig for what you or I or the international community think of their actions.

I think this argument relies on an artificial distinction between “good” (which act in the best interests of the citizenry) and “bad” regimes (which don’t); and the misconception that “bad” regimes act regardless of international pressures. I don’t think either of these positions can be maintained – clearly there are different levels of good and bad governance, and (with the possible exception of DPR Korea) all regimes take an active interest in how they are perceived externally.

You mention Sudan, and I think you will agree with me that the regime there will not be very impressed by any rule or principle that states that they shouldn’t regulate communication technologies to their liking.

I have not been arguing that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies; what I objected to was “legislating about who should have access to it on the basis of their ideology”. In one of my early replies to you, I clarified this by saying that “I’m not arguing for no regulation of technology; I’m arguing for minimal regulation of technology, and for that regulation to be geared towards ensuring access rather than controlling use.” I don’t see how you can interpret these statements as an argument that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies.

Tangential, more relevant points to follow.

Totally correct. I do so because for countries where this is not the case, this whole discussion is useless, because these regimes (on the whole) don’t give a fig for what you or I or the international community think of their actions. You mention Sudan, and I think you will agree with me that the regime there will not be very impressed by any rule or principle that states that they shouldn’t regulate communication technologies to their liking.

So it seems that we do agree about countries where we have ‘good’ governments (as shorthand for the more cumbersome description mentioned above).

As to ‘bad’ regimes (again as shorthand):

who should be the arbiter of whether a regime is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
what is the use of this discussion for these countries, as they would not be influenced by it anyway?

I think we use the word in different meanings: you in the sense of to reduce to subjection or quietness; to put down by force, I in the sense of to check by some special treatment; to make less troublesome; to cure and hence as opposed to prevent (you know the old say about prevention versus cure). Both quotes from the Compact OED, second edition.

I do understand your argument, but I think the crux is in your use of the expression ‘direct harm’ (emphasis added). What is direct and what is indirect? E.g. if I incite hatred I do no direct harm, nobody dies or is injured by it, yet this is criminal behaviour in almost any country, and with good reason. (Hurray! Finally an example that stays close to what we are talking about!) Is this repressive, in your sense of the word? If you say ‘yes’, then again I must applaud the strength of your convictions but doubt their good sense.

Anyway, I will not pin you down on this example and take your argument as I think it is meant. (In any case I would not want to get sidetracked into a discussion about forcetraffic rules.)