id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The power of the visual Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect. In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street). In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget. | arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic
We are no less able to consent to art than we are to every other manifestation of individuality in society. We are similarly unable to consent to, but strongly impacted by, all sorts of things, from music videos and adverts to people dressed strangely on the street. However, as a society we accept that people’s core values ought to be robust enough to survive challenges in the public sphere: we allow debate, art and music on many topics that have enormous personal ramifications, from euthanasia to deportation. As a consequence, it is only legitimate to restrict the worst excesses, whose impact can be measured objectively, before display: we set rules in this regard restricting the worst instances of, for example, exploitation and pornography. Further, those who are worst affected can self-limit their exposure: it is rare that people are entirely unaware of the existence of a controversial piece of art, and as such people can choose not to view it, or to view it only briefly. They should not have the right to prevent everyone else from seeing such a piece. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Freedom of speech Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it. Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional. The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits. | arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic
Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions. We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing Great, socially liberal movements have always been controversial, and always been supported, encouraged and propagated by art. Art is a realm wherein an artist’s expression is less limited by social structures (like the necessity of pleasing your box; of being ‘commercially viable’). Subsequently it has easily, and often, been utilised as a means of changing public opinion. Some of these movements, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes and norms surrounding sexuality (in particular female sexuality) and gender that Sarah Lucas, Tracey Emin and others contributed to in the liberalising 80s and 90s, attract social disgust. In any situation where a taboo is being attacked, this will happen. The converse however, is not the case: it is almost impossible to provoke social disgust by maintaining the status quo. As a result, restriction of art that provokes social disgust will disproportionately attack the socially liberal, and thus help to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is worthy of such protection. | arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic
Social change does not come from pieces of art. It comes from real, concrete political action and struggles, over time. It is unclear, therefore, why it should not be the case that we ought first to campaign for changes to society, and then display (newly) acceptable art reflecting upon the changes we have made. To do otherwise is to suggest that artists should be allowed special dispensation to run ‘ahead’ of the norms the rest of us feel bound by: note that it is not always the case that disgusting art later becomes acceptable. Not all transgressions are for the sake of future changes to society; some simply remain transgressions. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Social disgust can be central to artwork Some forms of art rely strongly on the provocation of disgust or other strong reactions. For example, conceptual artists often rely heavily upon the provocation of strong emotions in the viewer as a way of drawing attention to important, taboo areas (e.g. death, religion and sexuality). If they are banned from doing this, then we lose an entire branch of art: we are left instead with forms of art that choose not to engage with these areas at all. Particularly in cases where people want to draw attention to what they see as unnecessary taboos, shock is integral. For example, the work of Sarah Lucas explored taboos surrounding sexuality and gender: her work drew attention to stereotyping and taboo in a way that (necessarily) many people found disgusting. Further, it is possible to critically engage with that disgust. It is wrong to assume that the end point of a provocative piece of art is “oh, I’ve been provoked”. Rather, this emotional first response is only the beginning when it comes to the contemplation of that work. Thinking about the reasons for your disgust, and its context, allows us a greater insight into the work, which if you believe ideas are central to pieces of art (which conceptual artists do) is vital. | arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic
First, it seems implausible that there are ideas that can only be conveyed by instant, emotional responses. It must surely be possible to convey these ideas in other ways. Second, it is unclear why it is so important that these reactions are provoked: surely if something is incredibly shocking it is that way for a reason? Something cannot provoke social disgust without taking a clear stride over the line of what we consider to be acceptable in society. The taboos that exist in society are not meaningless: rather, they express inviolable values that are present throughout time, and in many different societies. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The default of total copyright is harmful to the spreading of information and experience Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator of a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making Creative Commons licenses the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. Mandating that art in all its forms be released under a creative commons licensing scheme means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. This is particular true in the case of “orphan works”, works of unknown ownership. Fears over copyright infringement has led these works, which by some estimates account for 40% of all books, have led to huge amounts of knowledge and creative output languishing beyond anyone’s reach. A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available. [2] Releasing these works under creative commons licenses will spawn a deluge of enriching knowledge and creative output spilling onto the market of ideas. It would mark a critical advancement in the democratization and globalization of knowledge akin to the invention of the printing press. [1] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010. [2] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
There are many ways to correct for the dearth of some works on the market such as orphan works. By simplifying copyright law, reducing lengths of copyright and more robust searches for legal provenance can all help correct for the shortfalls without eroding an important part of law and material rights. Or indeed the law might be revised simply to free works that have unclear ownership from copyright by default. Creators should retain, no matter how annoying it may be to would-be enjoyers of their work, control over their artistic output. Artists’ creations are fundamentally their own, not the property of the state or society. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Intellectual property is a legal fiction created for convenience in some instances, but copyright should cease to be protected under this doctrine An individual’s idea only truly belongs solely to them so long as it rests in their mind alone. When they disseminate their ideas to the world they put them in the public domain, and should become the purview of everyone to use. Artists and creators more generally, should not expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea they happen to have, since no such ownership right exists in reality. [1] No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share the same order of protection even now because they exist in a different order to physical reality. However, some intellectual property is useful in encouraging investment and invention, allowing people to engage their profit motives to the betterment of society as a whole. To an extent one can also sympathize with the notion that creators deserve to accrue some additional profit for the labour of the creative process, but this can be catered for through Creative Commons non-commercial licenses which reserve commercial rights. [2] These protections should not extend to non-commercial use of the various forms of arts. This is because art is a social good of a unique order, with its purpose not purely functional, but creative. It only has value in being experienced, and thus releasing these works through creative commons licenses allows the process of artistic experience and sharing proceeds unhindered by outmoded notions of copyright. The right to reap some financial gain still remains for the artists, as their rights still hold over all commercial use of their work. This seems like a fair compromise of the artist’s right to profit from their work and society right to experience and grow from those works. [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2004. [2] Walsh, K., “Commercial Rights Reserved proposal outcome: no change”, Creative Commons, 14 February 2013, | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
Although ideas are not tangible intellectual property generally, and copyright in particular, is far from a fiction. Rather it is a realization of the hard work and demiurgic force that sparks the generation and fulfilment of artistic endeavour. The property right assigned over these things to their creators is a very real one that recognizes their fundamental right over these works as owners, and the right to profit from them. The artist must have the right to prevent even non-commercial use of the idea if it is to maintain its value and so retain for the creator the ability to commercialise it. These protections are critical to the moral understanding of all property and must be rigorously protected, not eroded for the benefit of some nebulous notion of social good. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The creative commons is a more effective means for artists to build and expand their reach and markets than traditional copyright licensing arrangements The nature of the internet and mass media on the 21st century is such that many artists can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Wider use by other artists and laymen alike helps artistic works “go viral” and to gain major impact that allow the artist to generate a name for his or herself and to attain the levels of earnings conventional copyrights are meant to help artists generate but that ultimately hamstring them. A major example of this is the band Nine Inch Nails, which opted in 2008 to begin releasing its albums through the creative commons. [1] Creative commons licenses are so remarkable because they can be deployed by artists to expand their markets, and to profit even more from their greater recognition. After all, the artists still retain control of the commercial uses of their work and are guaranteed under creative commons licensing regulations to be credited by users of their content. [2] Giving undue artistic and distribution control to the artists through constricting and outmoded copyright may mean less significant reach and impact of the work. The state should thus facilitate the sharing by mandating the distribution of art of all kinds under creative commons licenses. [1] Anderson, N., “Free Nine Inch Nails albums top 2008 Amazon MP3 sales charts”, arstechnica, 7 January 2009, [2] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
Choosing to release one’s work into the viral market may be a shrewd business and artistic move, or it might not. All of this depends on the individual artist and the individual work. Nine Inch Nails both has the money that they can afford to take the risk and the name recognition that means they can be sure some fans will purchase the music, this is not the case with most artists. Thus the decision can really only be made effectively and fairly by the artists themselves. Trying to usurp that choice through a state mandate only serves to undermine the artist’s creative vision of how he or she wishes to portray and distribute their work to the world. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The costs of monitoring copyright by states, artists, and lawyers far outweigh the benefits, and is often simply ineffective The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for copyright infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain more or less. [1] Furthermore, the deterrent effect to copyright piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. In fact, the level of internet piracy of books, music, and films has increased dramatically year on year for several years, increasing by 30% in 2011 alone. [2] This is because in many cases copyright laws are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned to their annoyance in recent years, for example ninety percent of DVDs sold in China are bootlegs while even western consumers are increasingly bypassing copyright by using peer to peer networks. [3] Only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it has done little to stop their incidence. Copyright, in many cases, does not work in practice plain and simple. Releasing works under a creative commons licensing scheme does a great deal to cope with these pressures. In the first instance it is a less draconian regime, so individuals are more willing to buy into it as a legitimate claim by artists rather than an onerous stranglehold on work. This increases compliance with the relaxed law. Secondly, the compliance means that artists are given the vocal crediting under the license rules that gives them more public exposure than clandestine copying could not. Ultimately this adaptation of current copyright law would benefit the artist and the consumer mutually. [1] World Intellectual Property Organization. “Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property”. 2011 [2] Hartopo, A. “The Past, Present and Future of Internet Piracy”. Jakarta Globe. 26 July 2011. [3] Quirk, M., “The Movie Pirates”, The Atlantic, 19 November 2009, | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police copyright, but that does not make them any less of a right worth protecting. If artists or firms feel that they might benefit from fighting infringers of their rights, they should have the right to do so, not simply be expected to roll over and give in to the pirates and law breakers. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. Furthermore, the ensuring health of the economy is a primary duty of the state and this means aiding its domestic businesses and one of the ways it does that is by acting to enforce copyright both internally and if possible externally. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if their work is publicly funded Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her that no amount of reinterpretation or external appreciation can override. How a work is used once released into the public sphere, whether expanded, revised, responded to, or simply shown without their direct consent, thus remains an active issue for the artist, because those alternative experiences are all using a piece of the artist in its efforts. Artists deserve to have that piece of them treated in a way they see as reasonable. It is a simple matter of justice that artists be permitted to maintain the level of control they desire, and it is a justice that is best furnished through the conventional copyright mechanism that provides for the maximum protection of works for their creators, and allows them to contract away uses and rights to those works on their own terms. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of copyright, not cast aside by the unwashed users of the creative commons. Samuel Beckett is a great example of this need. Beckett had exacting standards about the fashion in which in his plays could be performed. [1] For him the meaning of the art demanded an appreciation for the strict performance without the adulteration of reinterpretation. He would lack that power under this policy, meaning either the world would have been impoverished for want of his plays, or he would have been impoverished for want of his rights to his work. These rights are best balanced through the aegis of copyright as it is, not under the free-for-all of the creative commons license. [1] Catron, L. “Copyright Laws for Theatre People”. 2003. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Artists often rely on copyright protection to financially support themselves and their families Artists as they are often not paid for anything else may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists often rely wholly on their ability to sell and profit from their work. This policy serves to drain them of that potential revenue, as their work is shunted into creative commons, and available to all. Artists often also have families to support, and putting the added financial burden on them of stripping them of their copyright only serves to further those problems as they exist. A robust system of copyright is a much better protection to struggling and successful artists alike who like all talented individuals seek to assuage their material wants. Artists cannot live on appreciation alone. With much less secure copyright many would have to find other work. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
Artists rarely make all that much money in the first place, and a great many only work as an artist part time. More importantly, they can still profit from their art, since they retain exclusive commercial rights to their work. Oftentimes they will actually benefit from operation under a creative commons license because it provides wider dispersal of their work, which builds a broader name and market for their work. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy. [1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
Few artists ever see much profit from their work anyway, many choosing the life of bohemian squalor in order to keep producing art rather than taking up more profitable pursuits. Vincent van Gogh sold almost nothing, but his drive to create never abated. No doubt the true artists will continue to feel the urge to create under this policy, and the loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-ascidfakhba-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output Whatever the end product, be it music, film, sculpture, or painting, artistic works are the creations of individuals and a property right inheres within them belonging to their creators. An idea is just an idea so long as it remains locked in someone’s mind or is left as an unfinished sketch, etc. But when the art is allowed to bloom in full, it is due to the artist and the artist only. The obsession, the time, the raw talent needed to truly create art is an incredible business, requiring huge investment in energy, time, and effort. It is a matter of the most basic, and one would have hoped self-evident, principle that the person who sacrificed so much to bring forth a piece of art should retain all the rights to it and in particular have the right to profit from it. [1] To argue otherwise would be to condone outright theft. The ethereal work of the artist is every bit as real as the hard work of a machine. Mandating that all forms of art be released under a creative commons license is an absolute slap in the face to artists and to the artistic endeavour as a whole. It implies that somehow the work is not entirely the artist’s own, that because it is art it is somehow so different as to be worthy of being shunted into the public sphere without the real consent of the artist. This is a gross robbing of the artist’s right over his or her own work. If property rights are to have any meaning, they must have a universal protection. This policy represents a fundamental erosion of the right to property, and attacks one sector of productive life that is essential for the giving of colour to the human experience. This policy serves only to devalue that contribution. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. | arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all
People deserve recompense for their work, but the stifling force of current copyright prevents the proper sharing and expansion of the artistic canon, to the intellectual and spiritual impoverishment of all. Creative commons licenses strike an important balance, by leaving artists with the power over commercial uses of their work, including selling it themselves, while permitting it to permeate the public sphere through non-commercial channels. This is the best way to weigh these competing needs in a complex society. It is not preventing the creator from profiting from his work. It is not a total abrogation of people’s rights, but a giving over of some rights for the benefit of all. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Women have a right to be free of stereotyping. Women's rights to be free from stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and objectification should be a matter of deep concern as they infringe on human rights related to gender. Advertising messages influence younger generations as well as send stereotypical images of men. As a result the objectification and violence against women will continue. Gender inequality and sexual harassment in the work place is not likely to diminish.1 This means that women will continue to suffer from discrimination based upon their gender. 1 Newswise.com, "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2010 | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Bans on sexist advertising will not necessarily solve the harms presented and could instead cause harm to businesses through restricting their ability to compete for audiences and consumers. Gender differences and beliefs about sex existed before advertising. There is no certainty changing the content of ads would bring about change within individual societies and cultures which have their own independent attitudes. Cultures have a right to their own ideals and own values. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Sexist advertising is harmful to society, especially women. Sexist advertising harms women through objectification and diminishing of self-image. The United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) links stereotypes about women to prejudice based on gender.1 Through visual and verbal messages women are portrayed as subservient to men. Women are seen increasingly as sex objects and these ads legitimize violence against women.2 Sexist advertising also harms women's self-image by portraying an ideal stylized body.3 The implied message is that consumers should seek to acquire these images even if they are contrary to the reality of body types and features. Eating disorders and obsessive beauty products consumption results in order to attain ideal beauty images presented in the media.4 Sexist ads also harm men through stereotyped images of masculinity.5 1 Object.Org. "Women not Sex Objects." 2011/ August 24 2 Newswise.com. "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2011/08/10 3 Kilbourne, Jean. "Beauty... and the Beast of Advertising " | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Sexist advertising reflects current social attitudes. Attitudes and perceptions are based on culturally specific values and beliefs. It is difficult to determine a universal definition of harm and sexist advertising to determine if harm occurs. Some studies have been questioned regarding their rigor in examining the direct link from advertising to violence against women.1Violence to women is not debatable but the cause of that violence is. In addition, studies related to body image and beauty are often restricted to those sharing certain genetic characteristics yet biological differences exist between women. What is an idealized body image exactly? Some current advertising has broadened images of women to include a variety of body types, cultures, and ages to define beauty outside traditional stereotypes. Advertising also portrays women in roles of power and success and not always as sex objects as claimed. 1 Young,Toby. "The Home Office report on child sexualisation is a 100-page Cosmopolitan article." Telegraph.com. 2010/February 26 |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Since advertising is pervasive in mediated messages, it has the power to influence social attitudes. Adverts occupy more public space than ever before in history. Due to technology, public space is global and ads can been seen around the world, in 2009 the UK became the first major economy where advertisers spend more on internet advertising than on television advertising1. Through such dominance, ads contribute to attitudes and values. Due to their power to influence attitudes within a society, serious attention should be paid to the content of advertising. 1 Sweney, Mark, 'Internet overtakes television to become biggest advertising sector in the UK', The Guardian, 30 September 2009 | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
All types of messages are prevalent and advertisements do not possess any more influence than news or entertainment programming. Advertising is simply integral to pubic space messages and represents the increase of all messages through the advancement of technologies. Advertising is also necessary to support all of types of other mediated messages like news, politics, and entertainment. Additionally, due to the overload of messages of all kinds, consumers learn to screen out and limit their reception of information. Through technology, a viewer can eliminate advertisements from program content. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Policies should be established which ban the promotion of sexist attitudes in advertising. Norway and Denmark have already developed policies to restrict sexist advertising1. In 2008, the UN Committee to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women calls upon states to taken action and in particular the United Kingdom government to address this issue.2 In May of 2011 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 's Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women made a case for sexist advertising as a barrier to gender equality. In that report standards were presented and methods to cope with sexist advertising were suggested.3In Australia a government advisory board has developed a list of principles to guide both advertising and the fashion industry.4 1 Holmes, Stefanie. "Scandinavian split on sexist ads." BBC news. 2008/April 25 accessed 2011/08/25 2 Object.com. "Women are not Sex Objects." 3 Parliamentary Assembly of 26 May 2011, The Council of Europe. 4 Kennedy, Jean. "Fashion Industry asked to adopt body image code." ABCNews. 2010/June 27 | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Policies which ban will interfere with business practices, restrict free expression, and be are difficult to standardize. If ads do not sell, they will be rejected and when ads are effective they are likely to continue in pursuit of gaining consumers. Business has the right to set business practices which work for them. Restricting the content of advertising restricts free expression. In fact, Sweden rejected a ban on sexist advertising because it was believed to restrict free expression.1 1 Holmes, Stefanie. "Scandinavian split on sexist ads" BBCNews |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Sexist advertising is subjective so would be too difficult to codify. Effective advertising appeals to the social, cultural, and personal values of consumers. Through the connection of values to products, services and ideas, advertising is able to accomplish its goal of adoption. Failure to make meaningful appeals to audience members seriously diminishes the outcomes of marketing. Since differing beliefs about beauty, body types, sexuality, and gender roles exist across societies and cultures, universal definitions of sexist advertising are too difficult to determine. As an example, biological differences exist between women and what may be considered excessively thin in one society may not be so in another. Any type of censoring calls into questions such as who will censor and how will such censorship be applied. The development of standards could favour cultural imperialism. Therefore, sexist advertising is too difficult to codify. | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Although there is a claim that sexist advertising is to difficult to codify, such codes have and are being developed to guide the advertising industry. These standards speak to advertising which demeans the status of women, objectifies them, and plays upon stereotypes about women which harm women and society in general. Earlier the Council of Europe was mentioned, Denmark, Norway and Australia as specific examples of codes or standards for evaluating sexist advertising which have been developed. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning. Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a "victim" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. "The New Sexism." Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
It is true that individuals do have the right to consume media and have some power over how they perceive and respond to media. However, since the nature of advertising is always planned for public consumption, then ads contribute to existing attitudes inside a person. When slaves in the U.S. were marketed and sold according to the content of advertising, a social system was being perpetrated. When the injustices of slavery were acknowledged both the business and the marketing of slaves ceased to exist. When the greater social good of justice is held over individual choice, social good should prevail. Advertising which demeans the value of certain groups of citizens is not appropriate for the public marketplace. Although Individual choice and freedom of choice are to be valued, public messages by the nature of their public audience, must serve the greater society. Pornography in the public airways is often regulated and banned because it is seen as potentially harmful to women and children of a society. Due to the public nature of advertising then, the greater society has a more important right than that of individuals. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Any changes in advertising should come from businesses themselves rather than through banning. Banning requires a legal framework and enforcement mechanism. External organizations interfere with the ability of business to conduct business. Should the social cultural environment change, businesses are likely to respond to the attitudes of their consumers. A recent change in the California Milk Board's website occurred due to public pressure.1 Social corporate responsibility is another possibility which business could embrace if changing social attitudes develop.2Banning is a repressive method which interferes with competition. Self determined methods should be allowed to competitors in the economic marketplace. Therefore, any changes in advertising should come from the business community rather than through banning. 1 Kumar, Sheila. "Milk Board Alters Sexist PMS-Themed Ad Campaign." The Huffington Post. 2011/July 22. 2 Skibola, Nicole. "Gender and Ethics in Advertising: The New CSR." Forbes.com. 2011/August 4 | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Even though some businesses have responded to public opinion, there are sufficient international commitments which address gender inequality in all societies. The Universal Declaration of Human rights and subsequent conventions have acknowledged the overwhelming need to set policies and practices into motion which deal with the rights of women and children. Waiting upon the private sector to respond to needed changes in social attitudes which demean certain groups of citizens, is to slow, too inefficient, and until actions are taken does not solve the inherent problems we have discussed. Eating disorders, diminished self images, and the promotion of women as sexual objects has immediate harms for women and influences the socialization of children. Men as well suffer from stereotypes about attractiveness, body images, and sexuality. Therefore problems created from sexist advertising need to be addressed now rather than around the hope that business fuelled by its concern for profit will take appropriate action to create and design ads that avoid sexist advertising. Advertising campaigns need to be planned with standards in mind not simply wait for public response when ads have be found offensive. The California Mild board example you provide illustrates this after-the-fact approach. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Sexist advertising is profitable Business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour. The profit from business allows for economic growth without which individual states and the world's economy could not survive. Competition drives the marketplace of products and ideas. And, advertising is the primary method through which those products, services and ideas are made known to the public. When banning is placed upon advertising, the ability to compete and survive in the economic marketplace is threatened. Therefore, the compelling need to make a profit is legitimizes the need for advertising. | media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising
Although business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour, business does not necessarily sacrifice its profit when curbing sexist advertising. If messages are harmonizing with social attitudes, then advertising which appeals to the greater good of gender equality does not necessarily harm but could enhance business credibility. The Benneton ads have often embraced a social consciousness to promote the public good while making a profit. The affirmative has acknowledged that for advertising to be effective they have to connect to values held within the community. As more awareness develops about the negative influence of sexist advertising, business is likely to benefit from the banning of sexist ads. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The failure of rule of law As the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore observed “law is only ever a piecemeal intervention by the state in the life of society.” [i] Laws are, ultimately, social norms that are taught, enforced and arbitrated on by the state. The value of these norms is such that they are deemed to be a vital part of a society’s identity and the state is entrusted with their protection. However, this ideal can be difficult to achieve. Debate as to which norms the state should be custodian of is constant. Where there is a disconnect between a law and the daily lives, aspirations and struggles of a society, it becomes unlikely that that law will be complied with. Generally, a state will not be able to give a pronouncement the force of law if it does not reflect the values held by a majority of a society. Compliance with the law can be even harder to obtain in highly plural societies. Even in plural societies ruled peacefully by an effective central government (such as India), communities’ conceptions of children’s rights may be radically different from those set down in law. The Indian child marriage restraint act has been in force since 1929, but the practice remains endemic in southern India to this day [ii] . Governments can attempt to enforce compliance with a law, through education, incentives or deterrence. What if the state that is intended to mount the “piecemeal intervention” of banning the use of child soldiers is weak, corrupt or non-existent? What if a state cannot carry out structured interventions of the type described above? Norms that state that the conscription of children is acceptable- due to tradition or need- will be dominant. Situations of this type will be the rule rather than the exception in underdeveloped states and states where conflict is so rife that children have become participants in warfare. The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals with command over military units who use children as combatants [iii] , but how should the concept of a “commander” be defined in these circumstances? In order for the juristic principles underlying the authority of the ICC to function properly, it is necessary for there to be a degree of certainty and accessibility underlying laws promulgated by a state. While ignorance of the law is not a defence before the ICC, it impossible to call a system of law fair or just that is not overseen by a stable or accepted government. This is not possible if a state is so corrupt that it does not command the trust of its people; if a state is so poor that it cannot afford to operate an open, reliable and transparent court and advocacy system; if territory with a state’s borders is occupied by an armed aggressor. Western notions of rule-of-law are almost impossible to enforce under such conditions. All of these are scenarios encountered frequently in Africa, and central and southern Asia. Some regions within developing nations are so isolated from the influence of the state, or so heavily contested in internecine conflicts, that communities living within them cannot be expected to know that the state nominally responsible for them has signed the Convention of the Rights of The Child or the Rome Statute. Nor can the state attempt to inform them of this fact. Laws still exist and are enforced within such communities, but these are not state-made forms of law. For an individual living within a community of the type described above- an individual living in the DRC, in pre-secession South Sudan [iv] or an ethnic minority enclave on the border of Myanmar [v] - the question is a simple one. Does the most immediate source of authority and protection within his world- his community- condone the role that children play in armed conflict? He should not be made liable for abiding by laws and norms that have sprung up to fill a void created by a weak or corrupt central state. There is little hope that he will ever be able to access the counter-point that state sponsored education and engagement could provide. Child soldiers and their commanders are simply obeying the strongest, the most effective and the most stable source of law in their immediate environment. [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006 [ii] “State of the World’s Children 2009”, UNICEF, United Nations, 2008 [iii] “Elements of Crimes”, International Criminal Court, [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p315, [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p240, | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
Opposition agree that the culture and law of a nation has a prodigious impact on the conscience of its civilians. However, according to Alcinda Honwana, an anthropologist and authority on the topic of child soldiers, the problem does not "have its roots in African traditional culture." [i] Although culture has an impact on society, the issue of child soldiers is not affiliated with it. Side proposition implied that conscripting children should be excusable if it is permitted by an authoritative body of local law. However, are laws based on value-sets that do not aspire to an accessible law making process more valid than the abiding law of that nation? No. Side opposition believe that the "rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law.” The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance and promotion of basic security and public order. Without it the nation will deteriorate. The proposition mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. The DRC signed the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” on 21 September 1990. During this time era, Congo was not a declared democracy. However they have hitherto developed a more democratic and stable government. Additionally, DRC has not withdrawn from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thus accentuating the fact that they are strongly against conscription of children. Being oblivious of the fact that conscripting child soldiers is illegal is no defence. As side opposition’s substantive material will show, both national and international systems of law are expected to take account of the fact that cultural, environmental and social plurality will lead to variable rates of compliance with particular laws. While it may be difficult to make community leaders liable for the creation of child soldiers, the ICC frequently seeks to make officials linked to state actors liable for failing to protect children from military recruitment [ii] . Moreover, cultural relativism originally assumed some degree of parity and open exchange between communities with diverging cultural values. There is no parity between the value-sets of stable liberal democratic states and the adaptations that vulnerable cultures undergo in order to survive amongst prolonged military conflict. Finally, it would damage the reputation and reduce the efficiency of the ICC if states were permitted to argue that regions in which child soldiers were active had an established tradition of military activity among the young. [i] “Children’s Involvement in War: Historical and Social Contexts”, Alcinda Honwana, The Journal of the history of Childhood and Youth, Vol 1 2007 [ii] The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dylio, The International Criminal Court, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cultural relativism and adapting to conflict The issues underlying all debates on child soldiers go to the very heart of intercultural justice, politics and governance. International and supranational legislation notwithstanding, the notion that children should be protected from all forms of violence at any cost is expressly western. The facts stated in the introduction are not sufficient to support the creation of a defence of cultural relativism to charges of recruiting and using child soldiers. “Cultures” are not simply sets of practices defined by history and tradition. They are also methods of living, of survival and of ordering societies that change and develop in response to societies’ environments. Within many communities, children are inducted (or induct themselves) into military organisations as a result of necessity. The traditional providers of physical safety within a society may have been killed or displaced by war. Communities left vulnerable by long running and vaguely defined conflicts may have no other option but to begin arming their children, in order to help them avoid violent exploitation. A great many child soldiers in South Sudan actively sought out units of the rebel army known to accept child recruits [i] . Following the death of parents and the dispersal of extended families, children gravitated towards known sources of safety and strength – organisations capable of providing protection and independence within nations utterly distorted and ruined by conflict. Western notions of inviolate childhood, free of worry and violence, are merely a cultural construct. This construct cannot be duplicated in societies beset by forms of privation and conflict that have been alien to western liberal democracies for the last seventy years. Attempting to enforce this construct as law- and as a form of law that can trump domestic legislation- endangers vulnerable communities, inhibits the creation of democratic norms and can even criminalise the children it claims to protect. [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009 | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
Side proposition are attempting to make an argument in favour of reforming the ICC’s prosecution guidelines, but are doing so in terms of the culturally relative definition of adulthood. In other words, side proposition are trying to discuss war, realpolitik and international justice using the language of social anthropology. This approach is flawed. Arguments about the appropriate age to allow a child to hunt, to leave school or to marry pale beside the life-and-death significance of participation in warfare. A child does not become an adult by acting like a soldier, and those who recruit children into military organisations do not necessarily view them as adults. Indeed, children are seen as easy targets for recruitment, due to their emotional immaturity, their gullibility and deference to those who wield authority. Children may join armed groups out of necessity, and in the interests of survival, but this does not mean that those armed groups should accept child volunteers, or should escape criminal liability when they do so. Although the west is now a safe and prosperous place to live, the categories of war crime that the ICC prosecutes were created in response to the depravity and ruthlessness of conflicts that liberal-democracies experienced directly. The developed, liberal democratic world is not blind to the sense of necessity that drives children to take up arms. However, it understands only too well that child soldiers are unnecessary. Children do not autonomously organise into armed militias – they are recruited by states and groups with defined political and military objectives. Such groups should be aware that there is no value or necessity underlying the use of children in combat, and should be made legally accountable when they flaunt this norm. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Removing barriers to demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation It can easily be conceded, without weakening the resolution, that war and combat are horrific, damaging experiences. Over the last seventy years, the international community has attempted to limit the suffering that follows the end of a conflict by giving soldiers and civilians access to medical and psychological care. This is now an accepted part of the practice of post-conflict reconstruction, referred to as Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) [i] . The effects of chronic war and chronic engagement with war are best addressed by a slow and continuous process of habituation to normal life. Former child soldiers are sent to treatment centres specialising in this type of care in states such as Sierra Leone [ii] . What is harmful to this process of recovery is the branding of child soldiers as war criminals. The stigma attached to such a conviction would condemn hundreds of former child soldiers to suffering extended beyond the end of armed conflicts. Sentencing guidelines binding on the ICC state that anyone convicted of war crimes who is younger than eighteen should not be subject to a sentence of life imprisonment. Their treatment, once incarcerated, is required to be oriented toward rehabilitation. Many child soldiers become officers within the organisations that they join. Alternately, they might find themselves ordered to seek more recruits from their villages and communities. For these children participation in the conflict becomes participation in the crime itself. What began as a choice of necessity during war-time could, under the status quo, damage and stigmatise a child during peace-time [iii] . Even if their sentence emphasises reform and education, a former child soldier is likely to become an uninjured casualty of the war, marked out as complicit in acts of aggression. When labelled as such children will become vulnerable to reprisal attacks and entrenched social exclusion. Discussing attempts to foster former Colombian child combatants, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers state that, “The stigmatization of child soldiers, frequently perceived as violent and threatening, meant that families were reluctant to receive former child soldiers. Those leaving the specialized care centres moved either to youth homes or youth protection facilities for those with special protection problems. While efforts continued to strengthen fostering and family-based care, approximately 60 per cent of those entering the DDR program were in institutional care in 2007.” [iv] Crucially, fear of being targeted by the ICC may lead former child soldiers to avoid disclosing their status to officials running demobilisation programs. They may be deterred from participating in the DDR process [v] . Moreover, the authority of the ICC is often subject to criticism on the international stage by politicians and jurists linked to both democratic states [vi] and the non-liberal or authoritarian regimes most likely to become involved in conflicts that breach humanitarian law. It cannot assist the claims of the ICC to be a body that represents universal concepts of compassion and justice if it is seen to target children- often barely in their teens- in the course of prosecuting war crimes. As the Child Soliders 2008 Global Report notes, “Prosecutions should not, by focusing solely on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, exclude other crimes committed against children. Such an approach risks stigmatizing child soldiers and ignores the wider abuses experienced by children in conflict situations. It is on these grounds that some have questioned the exclusive child-soldier focus of the ICC’s charges against Thomas Lubanga. After all, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC/L), the armed group he led, is widely acknowledged to have committed numerous other serious crimes against children, as well as adults.” [vii] [i] “Case Studies in War to Peace Transition”, Coletta, N., Kostner, M., Widerhofer, I. The World Bank, 1996 [ii] “Return of Sierra Leone’s Lost Generation”, The Guardian, 02 March 2000, [iii] “Agony Without End for Liberia’s Child Soldiers”, The Guardian, 12 July 2009, [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p103, [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p16, [vi] “America Attacked for ICC Tactics”, The Guardian, 27 August 2002, [vii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, pp32-33, | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
The proposition understates the extent to which the needs of child soldiers are catered to by international justice bodies. The Paris Principles [i] , which are used to guide the formation and functions of national human rights organisations, state that “3.6 Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators... 3.7 Wherever possible, alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards for juvenile justice.” Although not strictly binding, an onus is placed on bodies such as the ICC to seek alternatives to the trial process when dealing with children. (The Principles define a child as anyone less than 18 years of age). Even where children are placed in the role of officers or recruiters, they are unlikely to be tried in the same fashion as an adult. This leaves only the issue of social exclusion following the process of demobilisation and treatment. Many of the problems of reintegration highlighted by the proposition do not seem to be uniquely linked to ICC prosecutions. Columbian child soldiers are as likely to be perceived as threatening whether or not they have come to the attention of the ICC. The ICC does not create negative stereotypes of former child soldiers. As noted above, it seems perverse to give military commanders an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Ranking officers are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. Realistically, the commanders of child solders, and the politicians who sanctioned their use are the only class of individuals pursued by the ICC. Where the boundaries between community leader, military officer and political leader become blurred, the court will always be able to fall back on its discretion. Practically, however, this mixing of roles is only likely to be observed in marginal communities a few major conflict zones. This does not favour stepping away from established judicial practice in order to create an entirely new form of defence. [i] “Principles and Guidelines On Children Associated With Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2007, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The cultural construction of armed conflict The jurisdiction of the ICC is primarily exercised according to culturally constructed assumptions about the way war works – that there will be a clear division between aggressors and defenders, that armies will be organised according to chains of command, the civilians will not be targeted and will be evacuated from conflict zones. But countless conflicts in Africa and central Asia have proven these assumptions to be flawed. It should not be forgotten that almost all formulations of this motion define cultural relativism only as a defence to the use of child soldiers. It will still be open for ICC prosecutors to prove that the use of child soldiers has been systematic, pernicious and deliberate, rather than the product of uncertainty, necessity and unstable legal norms. Moreover, not all defences are “complete” defences; they do not all result in acquittal, and are often used by judges to mitigate the harshness of certain sentences. It can be argued that it was never intended for the ICC to enforce laws relating to child soldiers against other children or leaders of vulnerable communities who acted under the duress of circumstances. At the very least, those responsible for arming children in these circumstances should face a more lenient sentence than a better-resourced state body that used child soldiers as a matter of policy. Due to the nature of conflicts in developing nations, where the geographic influence of “recognised” governments is limited, and multiple local law-making bodies may contribute to an armed struggle, it is difficult for the international community to directly oversee combat itself. United Nations troops are often underfunded, unmotivated and poorly trained, being sourced primarily from the same continent as the belligerent parties in a conflict. When peacekeepers are deployed from western nations, their rules of engagement have previously prevented robust protection of civilian populations. Ironically, this is partly the result of concerns that western states might be accused of indulging in neo-colonialism. It is outrageous for the international community to dictate standards of war-time conduct to communities and states unable to enforce them, while withholding the assistance and expertise that might allow them to do so. Therefore, the ICC, as a specialist legal and investigative body, should be encouraged to use the expertise it has accumulated to distinguish between child military participation driven by a desire to terrorise populations or quickly reinforce armies, and child military participation that has arisen as a survival strategy. | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
The ICC is not likely to target children or the leaders of marginalised communities when prosecuting the use of child soldiers. Officials of states parties who play a role in commanding and deploying military units can be held liable for failing to prevent the use of child soldiers at a local level. If the agony of their circumstances forces a community to recruit ever younger boys into its militia, then officers, ministers or heads of state, along with the commanders of non-state actors, can be brought to trial for allowing children to be used as soldiers. This will be the case whether these individuals do so negligently or by omission. A guilty party need not engage in a positive act. ICC prosecutors and judges exercise their discretion in order to avoid the types of injustice that the proposition describes. The lack of prosecutions relating to the ad-hoc use of child soldiers by pro-independence groups in South Sudan underlies this fact [i] . Moreover, the ICC is bound by the principle of complementarity, an obligation to work alongside the domestic courts and legislators of the states that refer potential war crimes to the international community. If a state’s corpus of law allows for a margin of appreciation in judging the actions of isolated and endangered communities, these principles must also be reflect in the investigation and inquiries conduct by the ICC. Complementarity enables the ICC to function with the flexibility and insight that proposition assume it lacks. [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009 |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Punishing objectively harmful conduct Of the tens of thousands of children exposed to armed conflict throughout the world, most are recruited into armed political groups. Quite contrary to the image of child soldiers constructed by the proposition, these youngsters are not de-facto adults, nor are they seeking to defend communities who will be in some way grateful for their contributions and sacrifices. Child soldiers join groups with defined political and military objectives. Children may volunteer for military units after encountering propaganda. Many children join up to escape social disintegration within their communities. Several female child soldiers have revealed that they joined because to escape domestic violence or forced marriage. Many children who do not volunteer can be forcibly abducted by military organisations. One former child soldier from Congo reported that “they gave me a uniform and told me that now I was in the army. They said that they would come back and kill my parents if I didn’t do as they said.” [i] Once inducted into the army, children are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. They are usually viewed as expendable, employed as minesweepers or spies. The inexperience and gullibility of children is used to convince them that they are immune to bullets, or will be financially rewarded for committing atrocities. Many children are controlled through the use of drugs, to which they inevitably become addicted [ii] . For every account the proposition can provide of a child who took up arms to defend his family, there are many more children who were coerced or threatened into becoming soldiers. Whatever standard of relativist morality side proposition may choose to employ, actions and abuses of the type described above are object4ively harmful to children. Moreover, the process of turning a child into a soldier is irreversible and often more brutal and dehumanising than combat itself. Proposition concedes that child soldiers will be in need of care and treatment after demobilising, but they underestimate the difficulty of healing damage this horrific. The use of child soldiers is an unpardonable crime, which creates suffering of a type universally understood to be unnecessary and destructive. It should not be diluted or justified by relativist arguments. It would undermine the ICC’s role in promoting universal values if officers and politicians complicit in the abuses described above were allowed to publicly argue cultural relativism as their defence. Moreover, it would give an unacceptable air of legitimacy to warlords and brigands seeking to operate under the pretence of leading legitimate resistance movements [i] Child Soldiers International, [ii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p299, | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity. Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it. Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian. Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Universal rights and collective compromises Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative. If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days. Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority. It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC. | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
As noted above, the definition of adulthood accepted within western liberal democracies is not a cultural absolute. It can be argued that the legal cut-off point- be it sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age- is largely arbitrary. Children who care for disabled parents take on adult responsibilities inconceivable to many undergraduate students. Many developing world cultures would regard the under-emphasis of practical skills and physical training that exists in the education systems of knowledge-based western economies to be tantamount to neglect. In both war-torn Afghanistan and peaceful Botswana, a boy of fourteen is considered old enough and able enough to hunt; to protect his younger siblings; to marry or to be responsible for a harvest. Why should an Afghani child or his parents be condemned for allowing him to participate in the defence of his community? A family in a similar position in Botswana may never have been confronted with that choice. Although they might find the idea appalling in peace-time, the pressing necessity of war can cause opinions and beliefs to become highly flexible. This restatement of cultural relativism goes hand in hand with side proposition’s concluding objection. Although a culture can quickly assimilate and normalise necessary practices- such as arming children- it need not think that they are objectively good and valuable. It may be keen to abandon the practice. A community that responds to an urgent need to arm children may not want to arm children. Side opposition regard the use of child soldiers as symptomatic of cultural depravity, of a callous attitude to suffering. This approach patronises communities subject to privations and abuses now unknown in the west. It assumes that traditions cannot be overturned and that societies in the developing world will hasten to use their children as cannon-fodder for without devoting any thought or debate to the risks involved. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-tlhrilsfhwr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Making children military targets The purpose of the ban on the use of child soldiers is to prevent the normalisation of such tactics in conflict zones. It is not an inflexible implementation of a lofty European ideal. The ban, and the role of the ICC in enforcing it, is designed to reduce the likelihood that civilians will be deliberately targeted in developing world war zones. Why is this necessary? If the defence set out in the motion is used to reduce the number of war crimes convictions attendant on the use of child soldiers, not only will numbers of child soldiers rise, but children themselves will become military targets. Communities ravaged and depleted by war, under the status quo, may be seen as minimally threatening. Armies are not likely to target them as strategic objectives if it is thought that they will offer no resistance. However, if there is no condemnation and investigation of the use of child soldiers, they will become a much more common feature of the battlefield. The increasing militarisation of children will make those children who do not wish to participate in armed conflict- children pursuing some alternate survival strategy- automatic targets. All children will be treated as potential soldiers. The communities that children live in will become military targets. The resolution, although seeking to enable children to protect themselves, will simply make them targets of the massacres, organised displacement and surprise attacks that characterise warfare in Africa and central Asia. | traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
The purpose of the resolution is not to eliminate conflict in the developing world. Side proposition are merely seeking to remove the harmful side effects of the way in which the use of child soldiers is currently prosecuted – the risk of criminalising children and teenagers, the stigma attached to being a child soldier, and the condemnation of communities that rely on child soldiers for protection. Children are already the victims of atrocities perpetrated against civilians. They already volunteer to engage in military service. Armed groups that target civilian populations have already broken international law and have proven willing to do so repeatedly. Children will always be a target, whether or not they have sought out the means with which to defend themselves. With the international community unwilling to provide wide-ranging policing and supervision of international legal norms, it is not just to condemn individuals and communities who unwillingly take up arms to try to survive attacks by groups who flagrantly disregard international law. Peaceful communities forced to adopt abnormal survival strategies in the face of lawless aggression should be given the opportunity to compel the ICC to make situation specific judgments. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: performers are at risk of exploitation Children are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children [1] [2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings. [1] AP, ‘The Kid’ To Get $126,000 For His Share’ [2] The Deseret News, ‘Former Child Star Wins $1.3 Million Judgment’ | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
With the number of child performers on the increase, [1] parents are becoming more aware of what to expect from their child’s agent, and thus less likely to unwittingly allow exploitation. Additionally, laws exist to prevent parents from spending their child’s wages; for example, the “Coogan Law” dictates that parents in California must open a trust account for their child in which 15% of that child’s earnings must be put aside. [2] [1] Sand, ‘Child performers working in the entertainment industry around the world’. [2] Screen Actors Guild, ‘Coogan Law’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro06b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers Child performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them. | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
Banning child performers could be successful for professional child performers in regulated industries but it would be much more difficult to prevent child performers on a small scale. It will also be very difficult to get a balance between allowing children to develop in their chosen profession or sport while preventing them from actually engaging in any performance that displays that talent. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon Child performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13. [1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc. Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself. [1] Barrymore, Little Girl Lost | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”. [1] [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Being a performer limits a child’s formal education Spending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day. [1] Additionally, the focus on the specialised skill of the child (e.g., acting, dancing, etc.) may detract from their family’s or their own interest in formal education. [1] The Children’s Legal Centre, ‘What are the hours that a child performer may work?’ | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
It is entirely possible for child performers to achieve high grades. For example, Jodie Foster graduated magna cum laude from Yale University, despite having been a child star. [1] Child performers who spend a lot of hours on-set will also have access to a certified teacher who acts as their personal tutor during that time. [2] In addition, as long as the child performer obtains a sufficient understanding of the core academic curriculum, it doesn’t matter if they are more interested in their chosen career area than in formal education, especially if they plan on continuing on that career path into adulthood. [1] Yale Office of Public Affairs & Communications, ‘Yale Alumni Go to the Oscars’ [2] On Location Education, ‘Teacher Requirements’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others. [1] There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction [1] Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’ | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
Children will always feel pressure in certain areas of their lives, whether with exams or school plays. It may be true that pressure is greater for child performers, but children who perform at a professional level are generally more skilled, and so they are often better at dealing with this pressure. At the very least, they gain enough experience at a young age, that they learn the skills needed to succeed, even in high-pressure situations. Given the pressures all children face, [1] surely it is ethical to allow children into a world where they can learn how to deal with these stresses and protect themselves against possible future problems. [1] Etchingham, ‘Are we putting our kids under too much pressure?’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable Children involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition. [1] Even in careers like acting and dancing there are risks for child performers. Actors and dancers are usually encouraged to stay thin, often to an unhealthy degree. Because children are particularly vulnerable, they are more susceptible to the perils of over-exercising for athletes and eating disorders for performers. It has been found, for example, that girls who dance in their childhood are more likely than their peers to develop anorexia nervosa in later life. [2] Lena Zavaroni, the childhood winner of ‘opportunity knocks’ in the 1970’s, struggled with eating disorders for all of her life and died aged 34. With the damage eating disorders can do to a person’s body, it should be illegal to expose children to such risks. [1] Hoffman, ‘Obituaries’ [2] BBC News, ‘Anorexia linked to child dancers’ | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
The added risk for most child athletes and performers is very low, and there is professional help in place for them to manage it. Children who compete professionally in sporting events are only exposed to real risk in very rare, extreme situations. Some elements of risk exist in all aspects of life: children who are allowed to play on rollerblades are slightly more at risk of injury than those who are not; children who live in cities are at more risk of traffic accidents than those who live in the countryside, who are at more risk of falling out of trees, etc. Adults and children alike make decisions in which they take risks in the name of the greater benefits. For children who play a sport professionally, the physical training they receive can build strength and muscle and increase fitness levels, which provide the child with improved health and protection from injury in future. If child performers were banned, there would be no way of making sure that any children who still ended up in the business (i.e., illegally) had access to the support staff (e.g., physiotherapists, nutritionists) currently available. [1] When it comes to the possibility of eating disorders in child performers, professionals also exist for the prevention thereof. For example, in New York the Child Performer Advisory Board to Prevent Eating Disorders (Labor Law Section 154) exists to educate and provide information for child performers and their guardians. [2] [1] Canadian Athletic Therapists Association, ‘Athletic Therapy’ [2] New York Department of Labor, ‘Child Performer Advisory Board’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection. While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved. [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.” [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.” [3] Helfgott, “The international game.” | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
If child performers were banned, it would be the duty of the government to ensure children were not illegally performing, just as it is currently their duty to protect current child performers. In the United States, for example, Major League Baseball has begun to institute DNA testing for international players, in order to ensure that they are being truthful about their age when they come to America. [1] Banning child performers is possible, and it is the only way to truly protect children’s rights and to prevent them from the inherent physical and emotional risks. [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.” |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best. Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom. [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0 | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer. [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’ [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’ |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age. [1] [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’ | media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers
In a lot of films, television shows, and stage productions, it is possible to have young adult actors playing child roles. For example, in the popular American television show The O.C., the main characters were played by young adults ranging from 18 to 29 years of age but all portraying teenagers. [1] Sports needn’t suffer either: the minimum age of competition for gymnastics has already been raised, [2] [3] and others can surely follow their example without suffering from it. If professional leagues are not allowed to roster athletes below the age of 18, for example, children will compete in amateur and educational leagues where the pressure and commitment is lower, but where they can still train for the professional arena. [1] IMDB, ‘The O.C.’ [2] Hanley, ‘Gymnastics – Minimum age will soon rise to 16.’ [3] The Telegraph, London 2012 Olympics: artistic gymnastics guide |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this. This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials. [1] These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce. As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system. [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009, | culture general education education general house would make english official
Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind. On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially, [1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend. Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses. [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1] Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views. Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson. [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010, | culture general education education general house would make english official
English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence. As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration. Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen. [1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Avoids self-segregation In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation. Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with. This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available. This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority. | culture general education education general house would make english official
English-only policies are not about encouraging acceptance of diversity, and to the extent they are about bringing people together it is by forcing immigrants to abandon their culture. From the very beginning of the English-only movement during the First World War, when anti-German sentiment led to attacks on German-speaking immigrants, the idea of English as a an official language has been brought up to stigmatize immigrants . [1] The very debate over the implementation of the policy would do more to stigmatize immigrants than could be made up for by any benefits it could provide. It may well be that forcing Immigrants to speak English and work in it would help them to assimilate but so would deporting them across the country where they would be forced to sink or swim. We don’t do that because it would be wrong. Secondly, all of the government’s benefits are based on the assumption that individuals can learn English quickly if they are forced to do so. But learning languages is a long process, and the government’s policies would leave large numbers of people worse off before they managed to pick up the language, assuming they ever did. [1] Opposing views, ‘English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity’, 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Bilingual education hurts students Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction. This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language. Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box. Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital. | culture general education education general house would make english official
The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes. [1] If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide. [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane. Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do. In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult. In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English. | culture general education education general house would make english official
This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful. Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The US has a long tradition of multiple languages There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish. [1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana. [2] The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored. The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history. [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch, [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS, | culture general education education general house would make english official
England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages. The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Even within the United States people speak English differently Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language. It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated. | culture general education education general house would make english official
All of those accents are varieties of English. The meaning of English as a unifying force is that across Americans’ differences of religion, politics, history, and yes dialect, at the end of the day they are all brought together by a common language and a common ability to communicate within it. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-cgeeghwmeo-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics. This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1] Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets. The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made. Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it. [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus, | culture general education education general house would make english official
It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results. Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States. For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cultural appropriation is parallel to stolen intellectual property and should be treated in the same way. There are high standards of global intellectual property laws such as copyright and patenting for things such as medicines, and creative designs. However, these laws only apply to a few areas so this proposal would effectively widen its remit by taking intellectual property as a template for what might be considered ‘cultural property’. Many minority communities, including the Native American Navajo tribe have had their names, designs, and culture stolen or misused and have not received compensation. This highlights the embedded systematic inequalities where justice may not be brought to those of minority cultures. Reparations, monetary or otherwise, should be paid in these cases as other case studies [1]. The closest this has actually come to happening is with the Native American Navajo community. They had their name printed and used on products such as underwear, dresses and hipflasks at the popular retail store Urban Outfitters [2]. There was outrage in the community and a 'cease and desist' notice was filed in court for the products to be recalled. In addition to this the Navajo tribe called for monetary reparations to compensate for the damage done in the name of their community however, this was not granted. As the Navajo name was copyrighted this case was made much simpler before the law – as we propose cultural property theft should be. It is important to point out that many other communities which have been exploited previously have not copyrighted their name and so do not have this same opportunity [3]. This is important as with many cases, the outcome may have not resulted in anything further. The practise of reparations should be used universally as it is disrespectful to misuse the names, symbols and property of other cultures without consent. In a democracy where everybody is equal before the law, communities and individuals should be able to sue those for not giving recognition, or misusing cultural practises that have historic meaning and importance. Culture is embedded in communities with long standing traditions, theories and practises. This is evident as we do not (yet) have a single global culture, even though one might argue there is one slowly emerging. [1] Schutte, Shane, ‘6 famous copyright cases’, realbusiness, 11th August 2014, [2] Siek, Stephanie, ‘Navajo Nation sues Urban Outfitters for alleged trademark infringement’, CNN, 2nd March 2012, [3] Johnson, Maisha J., ‘What is wrong with cultural appropriation; These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm’, everydayfeminism, 14th June 2015, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
If it is something like a name that can already be considered intellectual property then this broadening is unnecessary, compensation will be made through the courts anyway. Culture as a whole is something that evolves overtime, it is not something that can be comparable to intellectual property. Culture is not as clear cut and rigid as the cases of intellectual property as it consists of things such as shared values and common knowledge which often has overlaps between different cultures and no true owner. Therefore, cultural appropriation cannot be parallel to stolen intellectual property and they should be handled in different ways. Reparations for something as arbitrary and subjective as culture is a system very open to exploitation. It may encourage exploitative behaviour with minorities encourages to pursue cases through the courts to gain reparations even when the case is slim. In some instances, designs or ideas may really have been made independently but be pursued due to similarity with a cultural idea. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Compensation rights a wrong Compensation is a basic principle of justice in any legal system. By definition it can be given to those who have had harm to reputation or dignity, emotional distress and loss of opportunities, including potential earnings. It is important to give compensation as it provides something for those who have suffered from disadvantages as a result of someone else’s actions, and it therefore helps to level out the playing field. Cultural appropriation causes clear harms – lost business, less awareness of that culture, and a feeling of inferiority. Theoretically, compensation is also beneficial as Rawls believes that it achieves 'some of the intent' of the principle of redress. This is in line with an egalitarian point of view [1]. While individual cases of cultural appropriation may not intend to harm they have an externality of harm by damaging the culture and identity as a while. This is in much the same way that those polluting often don’t intend harm, just to make a profit. [1] Gaus, Gerald F., ‘Does Compensation Restore Equality’, Compensatory Justice, Vol.33, 1991, pp.45-81, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
Compensation may be fundamental, but only when it is possible to quantify the harm, and decide who the harm was done to. With cultural appropriation both are often muddy. Taking a part of culture may not have a monetary benefit for the one taking that cultural item or a proportional loss for the original culture. If this is the case how is a figure put on compensation? Then who does the compensation go to; split between everyone in that culture? But who and how is it defined who is a part of that group? |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve. Compensation can be used to level out the playing field of inequality to those who have been oppressed. They help to give communities the recognition they deserve and help to reverse intuitionally reinforced negative stereotypes. The reparations can be used to benefit the community; for example, within the community and externally in order to educate people appropriately about the struggles of a repressed community. It would help fund efforts based on the model of the US Governments of Education and State Boards of Education to develop a 'robust curriculum' involving greater accuracy in black history as well as the involvement of African American figures in history on local, national and global scales [1]. This inequality is why the reform has to be state led; it is up to the state to protect minorities. Professor Matthew Rimmer from the Queensland University of Technology believes that ''At an international level, more should be done to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of Indigenous intellectual property''. This was said after Chanel made a A$2,000 boomerang [2] which would seem to be in opposition to the declaration which Australia has endorsed. [1] Humphries, Arielle, and Stahly-Butts, Marbre, ‘A Vision for Black Lives’, Centre for Popular Democracy, July 2016, [2] ‘Chanel’s $2,000 boomerang sparks complaints and confusion from Indigenous Australians’, ABC News, 17th May 2017, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
Firstly, communities can be given credit for designs and things of other cultural significance without the use of reparations which are arbitrary and pointless. Secondly, reparations are also ineffective, it throws a one-off lump sum to the formerly oppressed. They do not benefit the most deprived in society (economically). They are not effective in combatting racism. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Compensation has the potential to reverse damaged caused by Cultural Appropriation. Compensation is necessary in the case of cultural appropriation as it helps to provide victims with the resources they need or deserve as compensation for exploitative behaviour. Often it can be easily quantified as would be the case with the Navajo Urban Outfitters case. With stronger legislation and rulings on the provision for compensation for cultural appropriation, minority communities would be significantly better off. This would be a major step towards reversing the damage of said appropriation as it would allow the community to develop and gain recognition for traditional designs and ideas. Compensation can bring back some justice to small, minority communities as they can gain the appropriate recognition they deserve as well as the benefits that come along with it. It was estimated in 2005 that nearly half of the US $1billion market from native American Arts and Crafts come from the sale of counterfeit goods [1]. Compensation would help protect sales from native American businesses as well as their culture. [1] Padilla, Helen B., ‘Padilla: Combating fake Indian Arts and Crafts: a proposal for action’, Indian Country Today, 14 October 2008, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
The notion of compensation in the case of cultural appropriation is limited. Firstly, culture is subjective and essentially defined to individual interpretation and perception, there are limited definitive lines. As a result of this, compensation would be extremely difficult to both claim and give out every time a cultural appropriation is claimed by an individual or group. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Reparations and the use of the term 'cultural appropriation' is a mask for more deep-rooted issues of racism in society. The use of compensation as a means of redress for cultural appropriation doesn’t tackle the root problems that are expressed. The problems given as examples of cultural appropriation, like a Caucasian person wearing their hair in dreadlocks- a style that has meaning and historic prejudice to the afro-Caribbean community is redirecting attention and division. The individuals wearing their hair in this fashion however are not the problem. Demanding compensation from them 'does not challenge racism in any meaningful way' [1]. Instead targeting and punishing those who actively discriminate against those with the dreadlock style of hair is more effective and encourages equality. [1] Malik, Kenan, ‘The Bane of Cultural Appropriation’, AlJazeera, 14th April 2016, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
The use of compensation is effective in combating more 'deep-rooted' issues of racism in society. This is because compensation gives the minority communities the recognition, credit and any financial benefit that comes with this, of which they deserve. Highlighting other cultures and their achievements by preventing cultural appropriation will change attitudes so encouraging equality of treatment. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: No feasible system of which grounds of compensation can occur because of the fluidity of culture and cultural identity How a person identifies themselves aligns with the culture they are a part of. Szewczak and Snodgrass argue this is as the values of an individual “are influenced and modified by membership of other professional, organisational, ethnic, religious, and various other social groups, each of which has its own specialized culture and value set. Thus, individuals vary greatly in the degree in which they espouse, if at all, values by a single cultural group, such as their national culture” [1]. As a result, people can identify with several different cultures often at one time. This creates difficulties in allowing one person to seek compensation from another purely on the basis of identity politics – individuals at least partially define their own culture and it may only be one among multiple cultures they identify with. Culture itself has a complex nature; it adapts, borrows and evolves. It also influences lives in different ways and to different extents. No culture is fully homogenous. Because of this, any model for the extent of compensation would almost be impossible. Somebody with a long distant relative of which they haven't met, could potentially gain compensation for something that doesn’t directly affect them. They may even identify with the majority culture that is doing the compensating. Conversely some who identify with the culture being compensated may not be eligible for compensation even if they are directly affected. [1] Snodgrass, Coral R., & Szweczak, Edward J. "The Substitutability of Strategic Control Choices: An Empirical Study". The Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 25. 1990. | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
Who gets compensated would have to be clearly defined and yes there would be losers and some perverse outcomes. But what matters is that the system as a whole would be beneficial. While culture is complex any case would only be looking at one isolated aspect of culture; one custom. Defining this one aspect and who it belongs to would not be difficult. Compensation would not usually go to all individuals of a community but to help that community; to their community centres, NGOs etc., or to those individuals who have directly lost income as it would be with intellectual property. |
arguana-qrel-test-culture-thbcsbptwhht-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: globalisation and multiculturalism. Cultural appropriation prevents assimilation between members of society and creates further divisions based on arbitrary features of one’s ancestry or appearance. If reparations (through the use of compensation) were to occur in addition to this, it would create a more polarised and divided society as an 'us and them' culture is created. A consequence of globalisation is the movement of people and the diffusion of knowledge [1]. This happens on a mass scale where it is possible for a person from India to travel across the globe to the United Kingdom (UK) and get there within 24 hours of booking their flight. With this, the spread of technology and knowledge it is inevitable that culture and identity does not remain fixed either. It also means that an increasing amount of people have more than one culture. A direct consequence of increased migration is that migrants are likely to bring with them their cultural customs. An example of this can be seen in the UK. As the UK faced more migrants from the Sub-continent of India, the popularity of different curries increased, and not just among those of Indian decent. In such circumstances cultures begin to merge as the traditional 'Chicken Tikka' recipe was adapted into a localised version called 'Chicken Tikka Masala' and was, in 2001, declared the UK's national dish. Without globalisation, Britain's £3.6bn Indian restaurant industry would not exist and it would fail to employ approximately 100,000 people [2]. Any reparations would be paltry compared to the jobs that this industry has created over decades. This is a positive thing; it brings cultures together, encourages understanding, innovation and cooperation. Forcing people to compensate for the appropriation of a culture may mean that there is less social harmony as divisions are forced between cultures. For the following generations of migrants will be forced to choose a culture as cultural appropriation encourages division between the two. [1] Stief, Colin, ‘Globalization’, ThoughtCo., 3rd March 2017, [2] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Chicken tikka Britain is new Cook recipe’, The Guardian, 19 April 2001, | traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their
Whilst globalisation is occurring and creating multibillion dollar industries all over the world, cultures are not fully immersed in each other. Nor should we want them to be as we don’t want a global monoculture. Far from sparking divisions compensation can create harmony as it forces cultures to understand and tolerate each other by learning what is acceptable and what is not. Preventing stealing of culture will encourage greater attribution of where ideas come from preventing smaller cultures from becoming marginalised in a globalised world. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit People experiencing the use of their personal details by companies have largely been found to see the process as extremely invasive and unsettling. Many have felt violated by the exploitation of their personal lives to market them products, often from people to whom they never consented to hand over information. This feeling has been demonstrated through significant public outcry and backlash, as well as empirical results showing these attitudes becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the case of online targeted advertising, which is the most well-known use of personal information. The best example of such backlash is the result of Amazon.com’s “dynamic pricing” system, in which the company varied its offerings and pricings to customers based on information gathered about them from prior uses. The result was a severe backlash that cost Amazon business until it ended the policy. [1] This has led to a blunting of the desired outcome of such marketers who experience declines in uptake rather than increased and more efficient reach of marketing. Furthermore, the targeted marketing that arises from these forms of information storage and sale can tend toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent race and gender. When this happens it is all the more alienating. [1] Taylor, C., “Private Demands and Demands For Privacy: Dynamic Pricing and the Market for Customer Information”, Duke University, September 2002, p.1 | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
It is simply not true that people are bothered by their personal information getting out, or at least they are unwilling to do anything about it. In a recent survey 85% of respondents said they were aware that they were being profiled by advertisers as they browse the Internet. [1] They know that this data is what companies use to enable sophisticated advertising directed at them and to determine what the market wants. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, as in the case with targeted advertising based on personal search data, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. Also, a policy of disclosure such as that mandated in the EU might be employed in which services inform users that their data will be collated and give them the option to leave the site before this occurs so as to ensure that individuals really are aware. [1] Ives, D., “Anonymizer, Inc. Survey Finds Most Consumers Confused About Online Safety Measures”, Anonymizer, 19 October 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy. When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012. [2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores. [3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy. [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008. [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013, [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012, | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
Much of the “personal” data that is kept, collated, and sold is freely available online already and can be protected in many ways. The programmes that are used to collect information online, where most of this collation takes place, often do not ever gain real access to individuals’ identities, but rather only have access to search details. It is highly unlikely that any of this information could be used to identify actual individuals, and where it can it is safeguarded by laws regarding privacy. Furthermore, the information in question is put into the public sphere by individuals availing of services and may well not be guaranteed any form of special protection. They exist and are revealed in the public sphere, and belong there. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands The data collected and sold by companies is not safe. Servers with even the most sophisticated security systems are susceptible to hackers and other miscreants seeking to exploit the personal data of unsuspecting customers. Identity theft is a ubiquitous threat in the Information Age, one that increases every year as the arms race between data protection designers and invaders rages on. Data breaches have been rapidly increasing [1] and although the total number declined from 412 million exposed records in 2011 to 267 million in 2012 this has increasingly been due to hacking rather than simple negligence. [2] The result of these breaches is huge costs to individuals who have their identities and also to firms that appear to be unsafe. As individuals see companies as being uncaring of their information they tend to punish them in the market. [3] There is no opt-in because the individual has no means of seeing to whom the data is sold, and how secure their servers might be, putting them doubly at risk. Firms are better off not playing with fire and keeping data that could have huge potential costs to them if it is lost, and individuals are better off not having their information disseminated across cyberspace without any guarantee of its safety. [1] Federal Trade Commission. “Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. Technical report, Federal Trade Commission”. May 2000. [2] Risk Based Security, “Historically, Over 1.2 Billion Records Exposed According to Risk Based Security, Inc.” Risk Based Security, 22 February 2012, Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013, [3] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010, | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
Companies have been making great strides in the realm of data protection and will no doubt continue to do so as it is in their interest to keep any information they have to themselves. They have far more resources and much more sophisticated equipment than the hackers, and while there are resourceful individuals out there, the power of the corporate structure allows them to fend off attacks with greater and greater effectiveness. As these security technologies become more advanced people should feel more and more comfortable with companies holding their data. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion Personal information given to companies is dispersed into the public sphere in a limited fashion. Once placed into the hands of a firm it ceases to be any sort of absolutely protected private right (if it ever was), and is instead now within the sphere of the company with which the individual has opted to interact. It is the natural evolution of how people’s information informs the economic sphere. [1] With regard to selling that information on, it is clearly information the individual is willing to disclose in the realm of commerce so it should make little difference what commercial entity is in possession of the data, especially considering that the information is then only utilized to make their experience online more efficient and valuable. It is also important to consider the exact kinds of information conventionally revealed through the personal data mining efforts of firms. They rarely even access the true identity of the user, but rather make use of second-hand information gathered from search histories, cookies, etc. to generate a consumer profile the firm hopes reflects the preference map of the user. The individual's identity is not revealed in these most frequent cases and the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy, if such is a concern. [2] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. All of these data-gathering efforts of companies reflect the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients in order to best cater to their desires. [1] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010, [2] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 3 September 2008, | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
Firms’ data collection serves as a very real threat to individuals’ privacy and identity on the internet. Anonymity is certainly not wholly guaranteed through these tactics, and the information is not entirely safe. When individuals use the internet they often do not pay close attention to what is happening with their personal data. When they do not even know what information they are giving out they cannot meaningfully keep track of their privacy. Many hackers have made use of companies’ data collection efforts to gain access to peoples’ personal information, thus revealing information that individuals clearly never consented to. There must be some boundaries in the physical and digital world that marketers should not cross. Keeping and selling potentially sensitive information of clients certainly falls in this category. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive Businesses have been able to use consumers’ personal information to produce far better, more efficient, and more targeted advertising. Traditionally advertisement has been used to reach mass markets and has thus been used mostly as a blunt instrument, targeting the largest and wealthiest demographics in order to get the most efficient use of scarce advertising budgets. The focus on large markets has often left smaller, more niche, markets by the wayside. [1] Yet with the advent of the internet, targeted marketing, and data collection services, firms have been able to create whole new markets that cater to less homogenous needs and wants. The result has been a Renaissance of specialty manufacturers and service providers that could never arise if it were not for the collection of personal consumer data. By targeting their advertising, firms have been able to scale back on the broader advertising, making the whole endeavour less costly and more efficient. On the broader level, companies are able to utilize the vast amounts of individual data compiled to allow them to determine broader changes in society’s consumer desires, to establish aggregate trends. [2] E-commerce accounts for more than $300 billion in the US. This information gathering makes all businesses more responsive to consumer demands and to cause them to change their offered services and products far more swiftly, to the benefit of all consumers. Businesses have thus been able to flourish that might once have languished without access to a means of accessing their market or been unable to change with changing tastes. Because of the proliferation of personal information aggregation we can enjoy a far more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream on a more even footing, and a mainstream that is more able to meet the ever-changing demand structure of consumers. [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012. | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
It is not particularly reassuring that it is large organisations and in particular big business that keeps these immense datasets. They have their own agendas for how they use this information and if this is simply for pushing products then many people would want no part of it. Analysis are wary about how big businesses will use big data as there is the concern that it will be manipulated, misread or even just plain wrong. [1] While the information may benefit small businesses it is not these companies that have control of the data; they are reliant on it being shared with them by the already dominant much bigger firms who are likely to choose to do business with other big businesses. [1] PewInternet, “The Future of Big Data”, Pew Research Center, 20 July 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-phwnaccpdt-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers By targeting demographics and personal profiles by way of acquiring and utilizing personal data, businesses are able to put forward their services in a more targeted fashion in order to reach their target markets and to more effectively understand the broader market more generally. The limited budgets that constrain all companies has traditionally forced producers in the mass market to advertise to broad demographics and majority markets, resulting in a relative dearth of niche markets and breadth of services available in the mass market. Utilizing personal data effectively allows firms to enrich the lives of all consumers by expanding the range of marketable products and the furnishing of services to more eclectic tastes. [1] The vast numbers of websites and services proliferating online makes it much harder for people to find what they are looking for, but more importantly what they are not looking for but would want if they knew it existed. Data-mining allows for the channels of information to flow more effectively to consumers (Columbus, 2012). On the individual level companies are able to create individual profiles from information, so they can target them directly with things that might interest them. This strategy is used on Facebook, for example, users are shown ads that most fit their profiles giving them access to services they might not have ever found without the service. [1] Deighton, J. and J. Quelch, “Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem”. IAB Report. 2009, | privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their
It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others’ personal lives. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Government contracts can change the software industry for the better. Even when governments do not ultimately select an open source program, by simply including them in the competitive bidding process, they have been able to radically change the approach that Microsoft and other closed source companies take to producing IT solutions. Under threat from Linux, Microsoft has launched the Open Source Initiative through which it shares elements of some of its programs’ source code with key partners to enable the development of software for platforms like Windows Mobile [i] . More dramatically, in 2002, Real Networks opened up the source code for its world renowned RealPlayer media and music software package and, in 2005, IBM offered 500 key patents (out of 40,000) to the open source community. Sun Microsystems released its Solaris server operating system to the open source community under the Common Development and Distribution licence in 2005. If you accept that the open source software industry is a positive force, then simply by considering open source software, governments are doing well. [i] Ed Hansberry. “Open Source WebOS: A Win For Windows Phone?” Information Week. 12 December 2011. | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
The first firm to shift to the open source approach was Netscape with its Navigator web browser, because it was being outperformed by the closed source Microsoft Internet Explorer; Netscape made the shift out of desperation. This is exactly the same reason why Sun and Real have made their programs open source - Solaris was being squeezed by Windows based server software and RealPlayer by iTunes and Spotify. Similarly, the patents which IBM is sharing and the narrow range of source code that Microsoft is now opening up relate to sectors and product markets where neither firm is dominant and where they hope they can leverage the programming community to boost the quality of the software they are offering. Since Microsoft launched the Open Source Initiative, it has not expanded it in response to other governments threatening to shift to open source software. Therefore, we should not view this initiative as the beginning of a trend. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Open source software is more adaptable to government needs. Open source software starts from a completely different viewpoint of how products should be created. Rather than resembling a traditional hierarchical organisation (such as an early twentieth century business, an army or a monastic order) where everyone has their own clearly defined role and are told how to proceed by a top-down central authority, open-source software development is more like an open market where everyone is engaged in the same activity but come at it from different directions. [i] Out of this cacophonous market, a more fluid product emerges. The basic advantage of open source software is that, as users can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, it evolves. This means that users and programmers can improve, adapt and fix the software at a much faster pace than Microsoft or another closed source developer can match. The highly collegiate culture in which contemporary approaches to coding evolved continues to create programmers who are naturally curious about the functions and features of new software. Open source software harnesses the wide range of ideas and methodologies that different coders use to writer software to refine and improve existing programmes. Open source software solicits a wide variety of solutions to particular coding problems; the more solutions that coders generate, the more likely it is that an optimal solution will be discovered. Not only does the approach described above result in the creation of higher quality programmes, it also allows businesses and individual coders to easily adapt existing programmes to their needs. Monopolistic producers like Microsoft have an incentive to slow the pace of change, whereas the open source community will simply choose the best solution. In this way, open source software is more robust and more responsive to governments’ changing needs than closed source alternatives. [i] Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Cunningham & Cunningham. 18 February 2010. | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
Open source software is not bug-proof and requires far more updates than the closed source alternatives. In fact, the most successful open source software after the operating system Linux is Apache, an open-source web-server which holds around 65% of the global market, and MySQL, an open-source database [i] . Both pieces of software are far from innovative; they are essentially just stripped-down versions of closed source programs. Real innovation is driven by the profit motive and comes from the knowledge that a firm can capitalize on a discovery, as Google has done with its search algorithm. For this reason, the open source software movement is doomed to producing mediocrity. As governments choose IT systems for five to ten years, they should look to a reliable closed source solution which provides quality rather than buying into a nebulous idea of ‘moral software’. [i] “Microsoft’s IIS web server market share is falling.” Webserver. 3 October 2011. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Governments can re-define industry standards by choosing open source software. Economists use the term ‘network effect’ to describe the phenomenon whereby, as several people use the same communication platform (be it a specific device, such as a telephone, or a complicated service, such as Facebook), it becomes more valuable for others to use because they can share and collaborate on work with a wider range of individuals. Network effects explain why Microsoft’s monopoly of around 90% of the desktop market with its Windows and Office software has been so hard to challenge [i] . Governments are one of the few organisations which can define industry standards because citizens and businesses increasingly have to interact with governments electronically. Brazil’s Digital Inclusion Program, for example, has selected open source software for 58 government units rather than Windows or Microsoft Office [ii] . The result is that businesses and Brazilian citizens can use the same open source software at home, knowing they will be able to interact with their government. As open source software is often either free or cheaper than closed source alternatives, this approach enables local authorities, private businesses and individual citizens to interact more easily with the state, removing many of the obstacles and objections to the wider adoption of information technology. [i] Lie, Hakon Wium. “Microsoft’s forgotten monopoly.” CNET News. 19 June 2006. [ii] Fried, Ina. “Brazil: Digital inclusion, but how?” CNET News. 27 August 2008. | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
The network effect is more complex than the argument that, if a government uses a product, then its population will too. Firstly, 90% of desktop PCs use Microsoft products; the cost for companies and citizens to transition from Microsoft to an open source alternative makes it prohibitive in the short term. Secondly, open source software works on the basis of a constant flow of updates and minor changes; this may be suitable for servers (where it has already made most impact) managed by IT professionals, but the average citizen or government worker would require continual training and re-training before they could be trusted to implement and use such updates correctly. Open source software is being jumped on by some governments as a tool to attack Microsoft’s monopoly but, in the end, it will cost them time and money. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Open source software undermines national security. Even if closed source software firms are ultimately answerable to their shareholders, their shareholders want them to produce software which meets the needs of their customers so that they can sell their products. That is why Microsoft has offered a cheap version of Windows Vista to developing nations, and has been willing to cut the price of its software in negotiations with governments around the world. More worrying than the burden that closed source software places on a government’s coffers is the threat that open source software presents to a state’s security. By definition, the code for open source software is freely available. However, the continual attempts to hack into government computer systems demonstrate that many of the same hackers are now moving beyond mere targets of opportunity. Hackers could well take advantage of the increasing ubiquity of open source code to attack national computer systems. The additional security that open source software claims to benefit from is an illusion. Rather, it is the lack of ubiquitous open source platforms that has kept OSs such as Linux and BSD safe from attack. The possibility that an might yield some form of a reward is reduced when a hacker is presented with fewer viable targets. Although open source code may give ethical and honest coders more opportunities to spot the flaws in programmes, it also incentivises hackers to invest their efforts in spotting such flaws first. | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
This is a matter of national security and sovereignty, as well as one of cost effectiveness. Governments around the world are increasingly shifting their operations online, which has created a vast number of digital tax returns, criminal records, DNA databases and so on. At present, access to, and use of, this information is dependent on private companies which design software to benefit their shareholders. Open source software hands control of the software needed to access that data to the government and the nation itself, and gives it the ability to shape the data and software based on its own interests. Hackers have often attacked Microsoft products because of the ubiquity of its closed source software. Hack and malware attacks are ultimately speculative ventures. They target systems that have not received essential security software updates; systems that are operated by naive and inexperienced users; or delicate specialist systems that can be disrupted by a high volume of legitimate, non-aggressive commands and interactions. Such opportunistic attacks are more likely to succeed if hackers are able to direct their efforts toward uncovering the flaws in a single operating system – such as Windows. In the past, attacks have focussed on consumers and small businesses. By moving away from closed source products, governments can decrease the likelihood that crucial government data will be compromised by a hacker or a virus attack. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Closed source software is better at meeting consumer needs. Closed source software companies are more than capable of segmenting their products to reach each part of the market, as Microsoft has shown by producing its new Windows 7 operating system in a record six different versions. Microsoft’s monopoly of desktop computers ensures that if a programmer produces a niche software package or software translation for a specialized purpose, that programmer knows that potential clients will almost certainly be able to run the program if it is designed for Windows. If this monopoly is broken up and governments start to push Linux or other open source alternatives, the programmer will either have to develop for two or more platforms, thereby increasing the cost of the final product, or they will have to gamble on a single platform; both options would reduce the likelihood of the niche solution reaching the clients that need it. While open source software does allow anyone to spot a potential market and customize software to sell to that market, that access is also its great undoing. The type of accessibility that many open source products pride themselves on providing leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning amateurs or intentional wreckers. Constant self-policing by the open source community is required, in order to guarantee the stability of the software it creates. An analogy can be drawn with Wikipedia, where the freedom of the mob led to defamatory statements being written about the former editor of USA Today [i] . Governments should be wary of relying on an anarchic, self-organising community to serve their IT needs, no matter how smart and well intentioned the members of that community may be. [i] Seigenthaler, John. .”A false Wikipedia “biography”.” USA Today. 29 November 2005 | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
As the demands of government IT departments become more and more complex, software developers are forced to become increasingly specialized. Yet big firms like Microsoft often lack specialist depth and an understanding of niche markets (such as the market for specialist brail screen readers, which blind individuals use to interact with computers). In many instances, governments’ needs will be better met by the open source market, where innovation and flexibility are built in. One area where is the open source community’s ability to innovate is particularly relevant to governments is language; Microsoft only supports 33 languages in Windows XP and around 20 in Office XP, as they do not have the economic incentive to provide versions for other languages and dialects. Yet governments often need to provide access to information in dozens of languages and dialects (particularly in countries like Spain with regional languages like Catalan and Basque, or India with its 18 official languages and 1000 dialects). Open source software can easily be adapted to those languages. For instance, OpenOffice has been adapted into 75 languages including Slovenian, Icelandic, Lao, Latvian, Welsh, Yiddish, Basque and Galician, and Indian languages such as Gujarati, Devanagari, Kannada and Malayalam. By using the open-source model of sharing the workload between many users, the Hungarian Foundation for Free Software was able to translate OpenOffice in three days with the help of just over a hundred programmers. By providing software specialized for the local market, government can encourage greater IT usage by citizens, thereby increasing the skill level of the workforce and multiplying the cost savings made by shifting government services online. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-dfiphbgs-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Open source software is more expensive for governments in the long run. Open source software is often confused with free software; in fact, it is usually provided at some cost to the user. More importantly, if a Microsoft product fails, a government IT department knows that it can rely on a patch or technical support. Whereas, with open source software, they are left waiting on a community to get round to tackling the problem. This has meant that governments which choose open source software have had to pay for expensive support packages, which makes the total cost of the IT solution similar to that of the closed source software. This has been to the advantage of major consultancy firms, which are often chosen to put together IT solutions and who can make more money from pushing expensive support contracts than on upfront costs for software. In the rush to find the software with the cheapest sticker price, there is a risk that governments will end up paying more overall for open software that lacks the accessibility and features of the closed source alternatives. | digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should
While open source software is not always free, it tends to be significantly cheaper than closed source alternatives. For instance, the Brazilian government’s decision to adopt open source software for its housing department in 2005 has generated savings of $120m a year. [i] Given that, the United States government alone spends $80 billion a year on information technology, the potential for total cost savings is enormous. [ii] The money saved could be used to fund more important government expenditure such as healthcare or education – the very activities that, it was claimed, could be delivered more efficiently and cheaply following widespread adoption of IT systems. Furthermore, simply by discussing adopting open source software, Microsoft has been forced to reduce its prices; it cut its prices by $35m to match Linux’s offering to the city of Munich and, when Brazil began discussing its future software plans, Microsoft was forced to offer to release a cheaper version of its new operating system, Windows Vista. [iii] Ultimately, this not only helps governments, but also helps Microsoft, as many developing nations currently rely on pirated copies of Microsoft software which undermines attempts to stop copyright fraud. [i] Kingstone, Steve, ‘Brazil adopts open-source software’, BBC News, 2/05/2005. [ii] ‘Using Technology to Drive Productivity Gains’, Performance.gov, accessed 25/07/2013 [iii] Bailey, Dave. “Microsoft faces value challenge.” Computing. 18/06/2003. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force When riots are on-going then the police needs to act but the safety of everyone involved should be considered to be paramount. If a riot will not disperse peacefully then the police often find they need to use batons, water cannon, or even in extremis tear gas or rubber bullets. It is the police’s duty to bring back public order by stopping riots through these methods. However this should not be at the expense of a much more preventative approach that shutting down social media networks would allow. If during instances of rioting the police are able to prevent those rioters from encouraging their friends to join them so expanding the riots then this is the right course of action to take. Rioters used social media like activists, to outmanoeuvre the police targeting areas where there was little police presence. Cutting off their means of communication would make this much harder and less effective. [1] This has been used effectively in the past; the San Francisco BART, shut down mobile phones on its network to prevent protests which it feared could lead to clashes with commuters, it may well have been the reason why there were no such protests, but it did spark outrage over violations of freedom of speech. [2] [1] O’Rourke, Simon, “Empowering protest through social media”, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 2011, P.51 [2] Cabanatuan, M., “BART admits halting cell service to stop protests”, SFGate, | access information house would block access social messaging networks
There is little evidence that cutting off the internet or mobile phone networks would be effective. Riots occurred before mobile phones and the internet were invented and spread just as worryingly. Cutting off access would be an inconvenience but little more than that. Blaming the technology is not helpful to finding the real solutions to preventing rioting which is engaging with the underlying problems. [1] [1] Metcalf, J., and Taylor, M., “Technology has always been blamed in times of unrest”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Free speech is not useful in this context, as riot is never legitimate in a free society Riots should not be tolerated in a free society as there are already legal and peaceful methods of dissenting such as through demonstrations, petitions, and contacting your representative in Parliament. It demonstrates a fundamental unwillingness to engage with not only the apparatus of the state, but society more generally. Rioters have no regard for the public, and the violence and damage they cause harms everyone. Riots tend to do little to actually challenge the state, but rather they tend to harm the most disadvantaged, those who happen to be in the vicinity of the mobs. The freedom of speech social media provides to its users is being fundamentally misused in the context of riots. [1] When speech is used to organize violence, it must be curtailed for the sake of society as individuals security and safety is more important that freedom of speech that is briefly curtailed. Violence damages long after the event whereas those who have their freedom of speech curtailed for a few hours can swiftly voice their opinions once the riot has ended and the block lifted. [1] Thomson, A. and Hutton, R., “UK May Block Twitter, Blackberry Messaging Services in Future Riots”. Bloomberg. 11 August 2011. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Of course we do not want freedom of speech to be misused to incite and organise rioting and violence but that does not mean that it is always illegitimate. Riots may sometimes be the natural outgrowth of bad policy and a government that has been unwilling to listen to peaceful forms of protest. Disenfranchised groups may be forced in extremity to turn to these sorts of activities and the state should take heed when they occur instead of seeking to wield its power over the internet and mobile phones to crush dissent. This is what happened in the revolutions in the Arab world. When a riot does have a substantive cause then it is essential that social media is accessible as it is the way for the rioters to get their side of the story across. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Would stop riots from spreading The police must try to stop riots from spreading and stop copycat rioting elsewhere. Knowledge of rioting happening elsewhere is often the Oxygen of riots; the riots in Manchester and elsewhere outside of London in 2011 were mostly as a result of media exposure. According to Greater Manchester Police chief Peter Fahy "A certain group of people saw what was happening in London and decided they seemed to be getting away with it. We knew what was absolutely critical was that there needed to be control of London. Because that was just creating more and more copycat violence up here." [1] Cutting off social media would have helped prevent the riots from spreading so ensuring that they remain small and a localised problem. [1] Pilkington, D., “Rioting in London sparked 'copycat' behaviour”, The Independent, 14 November 2011. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Preventing word from getting out through social media and stopping those who inevitably try to take advantage of the rioting to ferment violence elsewhere is not something the police should be doing. In a free country anyone should be allowed to report on what they are doing and on riots that are occurring. Moreover a shutdown would be ineffective at preventing the news getting out as the traditional media would still be broadcasting. In 270 interviews done by researchers into the riots more than 100 people said they heard about the riots through TV news, more than through social media. [1] [1] Adegoke, Y., and Ball, J., “Twitter? Facebook? Rioters saw it on TV”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Social networks serve as a powerful signalling device for the expansion of violent behaviour By using Twitter to signal the start of riots it attracts people to join the mob. People in riots generally look to those around them in order to see what is considered acceptable behaviour. As boundaries are crossed, such as the change from indiscriminate vandalism to looting, and reported on Twitter, the same behaviour echoes elsewhere. The lens through which rioters determine acceptable behaviour is expanded, so the chance of behaviours like looting rippling across the various mob groups within a locale increases. One escalation of violence becomes multiple escalations. Twitter is thus a serious danger to society during periods of social unrest and rioting, because it acts as a catalyst for further mayhem. By blocking Twitter governments are able to manage flashpoints and prevent them from expanding violence to other locations. This makes riot situations both less likely to escalate, and easier to break up. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Rioters will always find tools by which to organize. The internet is a remarkably fecund environment, one in which solutions to problems are quickly found. If the government were to block Twitter, enterprising demonstrators would quickly find an alternative. The violence will still escalate, and blocking out a website will fail to accomplish anything other than alienate Twitter users from the state and anger at its impositions. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Blocking social networks denies people the ability to mobilize on genuine social issues The state may not be the best placed to gauge the legitimacy of riots. Oftentimes riots are the result of massive social pressures, like poverty or limited integration of immigrant communities. When these issues are not properly addressed, or outright ignored by the ruling elites, they boil over. Positive things can come from riots. They can put the issues on the table and bring them screaming into the public consciousness. This is the difference between the Arab Spring that was considered legitimate and the London riots that were not, apart from the initial peaceful protests the riots did not have an agenda to create change. [1] The government suppressing legitimate demonstrations, whether they do it with physical force or internet repression, ultimately serves only to push away the problem, to continue to ignore it. [2] Blocking social networks therefore only seeks to muzzle the expression of outrage that is sometimes entirely justified. The media attention and organizing power of social networks serves to get people engaged, motivated, and visible. The government should not seek to stop that. They should seek to prevent protest and demonstration from spilling into violence. Blocking access to social networks will not aid in that endeavour. [1] Stylianou, A., “Cyber Regulation and the Riots”, Legal matters, Autumn 2011. [2] Dugan, L. “Blocking Twitter During Riots a Bad Idea, Study Proves”. Media Bistro. 2011. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Even if their message is worth being spread, rioting and violence is not the way to do it. Using the tactic of riot to further an aim only serves to alienate the public which is brutalized by the violence in the streets. In effect when a protest turns into a riot it delegitimises itself and tarnishes its message. Blocking social networks will not occur when those protests are seeking to spread their message relatively peacefully but will only happen when they have already turned to violence when it becomes a useful tool in the arsenal of the state to forestall the worst violence by denying its ability to be spread rapidly through the internet. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using It is wrong to suggest that social networks only provide advantages to the rioters in a riot. Many of the networks that can be used are open to the public and even where they are not as with blackberry messenger the police and intelligence services can likely gain access. This means that the police can also benefit from rioters use of social networks. Allowing the rioters to communicate can help the police to track what the rioters are doing and potentially to intercept any plans before they can be put into action. The same logic is used with websites that promote extremist ideologies; it is often better to monitor them for the intelligence they provide. The police already monitor protest groups in this way during demonstrations and even use it to help police impromptu raves so will surely apply it to riots. [1] Yet the social media is useful in other ways, particularly after the rioting it can be used to work out who was involved and to provide evidence against them so making the police much more efficient at catching and charging rioters. [1] Rawlinson, K., “Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes 'next big thing in law enforcement”, The Independent, 1 October 2012, | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Monitoring a riot does not prevent the damage, destruction, and potentially loss of human riot that the riot causes. Rather than taking a reactive passive approach the police have a duty to try and save lives by making use of every tool they have to limit the size and extent of the rioting. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest” The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet. [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000. [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
The state curtails all kinds of speech when it is genuinely in the public interest. Blocking Twitter and other social networks during times of riot is a very particular case of intervention, one with specific manifest benefits for society. The internet is indeed a fantastic tool for social organization and dissent, but it cannot be abused at the expense of the public. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting. [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011. [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Private companies have no right to do business when that business is facilitating violence even if that facilitating is unintentional. Sometimes brief impositions are necessary to secure public order. In the course of a riot Twitter can be blocked temporarily to have a meaningful effect on its coordination, extent, and level of violence. This however need not cause problems with those uninvolved not receiving prior warnings as the police could do this before shutting down the network in the local area. And of course when the riot is over the service can return as normal. Ultimately the disruption is very brief, and not likely to ruffle too many feathers overmuch. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihwbasmn-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Blocking social networks will not work How are the police to block social networks when riots are ongoing? The idea that blocking an individual network like Twitter would stop online networking and reporting during riots is laughable and misunderstands the rapidity with which the internet community adapts to changed circumstances and attempts at censorship. Blocking Twitter might work once, but never again. This is why there have been suggestions that the police would go further and either cut off the internet or phone networks as they would effectively need to impose a communications blackout in order for it to be successful, much as the Chinese does in Tibet when there is unrest. [1] Even then the action may not work, rioters will likely simply post pictures and encouragement for the next night’s rioting once the internet and mobile connections are restored as governments would have to do if they did not want to affect the law abiding majority during the day. [1] Branigan, T., “China cut off internet in area of Tibetan unrest”, The Guardian, 3 February 2012. | access information house would block access social messaging networks
Internet users rely on high visibility for their comments to be significant. When Twitter is shut down, or its replacement, the new sites that pop up must start again in building numbers. [1] Without sufficient numbers on the network they will be able to build up momentum for riots online. The result is a significant blunting of the network’s ability to develop or act in a riot scenario; a site is not useful for directing riots if most of those who would riot or are rioting are not on that network. [1] Berger, J.M., “#unfollow”, Foreign policy, 20 February 2013. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2] This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5] [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005 [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010 [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012 [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003 | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism. As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4] [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012 [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009. [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012 [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Regulating the Internet is a means for governments to spy on their citizens Governments around the world are tracking their citizens’ activities online. [1] They can use all sorts of techniques, like automated data-mining (i.e. via trawling your Facebook and Twitter accounts) and deep packet inspection of each electronic message sent (i.e. intercepting and reading your email). All these methods are violations of important principles. The automated data-mining violates the principle that people shouldn’t be investigated by their governments unless there is warrant for it (so there is reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in a crime). Also, data mining creates many false positives, leading to citizens being thoroughly investigated without probable cause. [2] Deep packet inspection violates people’s fundamental right to secrecy of correspondence, which is a violation of privacy. The problem with these government policies is that they’re hard to control – even in democracies: much of the spying is done by intelligence agencies, which are often able to evade democratic control on account of the need for secrecy rather than transparency. [3] [1] Reporters Without Borders, Enemies of the internet, 2012 and Kingsley, Britain won’t be the only country snooping on people’s internet use, 2012 [2] US Researchers Decide Spying On Citizens Is Bad, 2008 [3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘NSA Spying’. | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
‘Spying on the internet’ is nothing different from a normal police investigation Obviously, governments also use the internet and social media to investigate suspects. But when they’re doing this, they’re only using information that’s publicly available online. The technical term for this is ‘OSINT’, which stands for ‘Open Source Intelligence’, which means that it’s the kind of information that anyone with access to Google and a lot of spare time could have found. [1] When police investigations turn up more severe suspicions, then more extreme methods can be used to obtain evidence if needed, sometimes even actively asking hackers for help. [2] But methods like these are not necessarily bad: their disadvantages in use have to be weighed against their significant benefits. And governments are doing this, as is for example shown in Canada’s ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’: governments try to extend the principles of due process and probable cause to the internet, but at the same time they need to be able to defend their citizens from harm. [3] [1] Wikipedia, ‘Open source intelligence’, 2012. [2] ‘NSA chief seeks help from hackers’, 2012 [3] ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’, 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet regulation is an attempt by big interest groups to regulate the internet in their favour Large companies have an active interest in shaping the structure of the internet. One example of this is the Stop Online Piracy-Act (SOPA), [1] wherein U.S.-based music and movie companies proposed that they themselves would be able to police copyright infringements against websites that are hosted outside of the United States. [2] The phenomenon whereby companies succeed in shaping government policies according to their own wishes is called ‘regulatory capture’. Another example from the telecommunications industry is the lobby effort by several large corporations, who have succeeded in eroding consumer protection in their favour. [3] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet in the first place, big companies wouldn’t have had any incentive to attempt regulatory capture. [1] 112th Congress, ‘H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act’ [2] Post, ‘SOPA and the Future of Internet Governance’, 2012 [3] Kushnick, ‘ALEC, Tech and the Telecom Wars: Killing America's Telecom Utilities’, 2012 | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
With the government as final decision-maker, at least the citizens and consumers have some say Regulatory capture does sometimes happen and when it does, it’s bad. But the risk of regulatory capture isn’t a sufficient argument to keep the government away from regulating the internet, because governments can also protect citizens and consumers from big companies. An example is the net neutrality debate. Content providers could have started paying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to have their websites load faster than any other website (paid prioritization). Entertainment companies that also provide internet are currently being investigated for not allowing their competitors in the entertainment segment access to their network as internet provider. [1] This threatens the freedom of choice of the consumer, which is why governments have stepped in to ensure that companies aren’t allowed favour some websites. [2] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet, it couldn’t have stood up for consumers’ and citizens’ rights like this. [1] DOJ Realizes That Comcast & Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu & Netflix, 2012 [2] Voskamp, ‘GOP Attempt to Overturn FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Fails in Senate’, 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet governance is necessary to combat heinous crimes committed via the internet The internet is a means of communication – therefore also a means of communication between criminals. And because it is global it creates global crime problems that need coordinated responses. One type of crime that has particularly become a problem on the internet is child sexual abuse material: the internet allows for an easy and anonymous distribution method which can even be secured by modern encryption methods. [1] Governments can help fight this by requiring ISPs and mobile companies to track people’s internet histories, hand over data when requested, and allow police to get information from them without a search warrant, something which has been proposed by the Canadian government. [2] In Australia, the government even proposed mandatory filtering of all internet traffic by ISPs to automatically filter out all child sexual abuse material. [3] Admittedly, these measures seem drastic – but in cases like these, or similar cases like terrorism, the harm prevented is more important. [1] ‘Child Pornography on the Rise, Justice Department Reports’. 2010. [2] ‘Current laws not focused enough to combat child porn online’. 2012. [3] Mcmenamin, Bernadette, ‘Filters needed to battle child porn’. 2008. | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
Battling hideous crimes shouldn’t lead us to draconian and ineffective policies Everyone is against child sexual abuse material. But in their drive to battle it, governments might go too far. For example, granting the police the right to search without (full) warrant is a harm to citizens’ basic right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government surveillance. [1] The automatic internet filtering and data retention are possibly an even worse infringement on basic civil liberties: it designates all internet traffic and therefore all internet using citizens as suspect, even before a crime has been committed. This overturns the important principle that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, instead of the police and prosecution changing their behavior, internet filters hardwire these new assumptions into the architecture of the internet itself. [2] This means it is more all-pervasive and less noticeable, thus constituting an even worse violation. These draconian measures might even seem worth it, until you realise they don’t work: blocking and filtering technology makes mistakes and can be circumvented easily. [3] [1] ‘Online surveillance bill critics are siding with ‘child pornographers’: Vic Toews’. 2012. [2] Lessig, ‘Code is Law’. 2000. [3] ‘Why government internet filtering won’t work’. 2008. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a working economy on the internet As seen above, the internet has enabled many types of criminal behavior. But it has also enabled normal citizens to share files. Music, movie and game producers have difficulty operating in a market where their products get pirated immediately after release and spread for free instantaneously on a massive scale. The internet enables violation of their right of ownership, gained through providing the hard work of creating a work of art, on a massive scale. Since it’s impractical to sue and fine each and every downloader, a more effective and less invasive policy would be government requiring Internet Service Providers to implement a graduated response policy, which has ISPs automatically monitor all internet traffic and fine their users when they engage in copyright violation. Something along these lines has already been tried in France, called HADOPI, which has succeeded in decreasing the downloading of unauthorized content. [1] Apart from this, governments also need to think about how to translate everyday offline activities onto the internet. For example, when you file your tax report offline, you would sign it with your handwritten signature. The online variant would be a digital signature. [2] Developing and deploying a digital signature would enable citizens and corporations to do business, file their tax reports and pay their taxes online. [1] Crumley, ‘Why France’s Socialists Won’t Kill Sarkozy’s Internet Piracy Law’, 2012 [2] Wikipedia, ‘Digital Signatures’, 2012. | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2] When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6] [1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012. [2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011. [3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011. [4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011. [5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011. [6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifpgdff-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a safe internet Citizens, corporations, and public organizations face several security threats when online: critical infrastructure systems can be hacked, like the energy transport system, [1] citizens can fall victim to identity theft, [2] and phishing, [3] whereby hackers gain access to bank accounts or other sensitive information. Specifically, it seems that the public sector is attacked the most. [4] In response to cyber-threats like these, many governments have set up Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Incident Response and Security Teams (IRTs), or Computer Security and Incident Response Teams (CSIRT; the fact that we haven’t settled on a fitting acronym yet shows how much it is still a novel phenomenon): agencies that warn citizens and organizations alike when a new threat emerges and provides a platform for (the exchange of) expertise in methods of preventing cyber-threats and exchanging information on possible perpetrators of such threats. Oftentimes, these (inter)governmental agencies provide a place where private CSIRTs can also cooperate and exchange information. [5] These agencies provide a similar function online as the regular police provides offline: by sharing information and warnings against threats, they create a safer world. [1] ‘At Risk: Hacking Critical Infrastructure’. 2012. [2] ‘Identity theft on the rise’. 2010. [3] ‘Phishing websites reach all-time high’. 2012. [4] ‘Public sector most targeted by cyber attacks’. 2012. [5] see for example the About Us page of the US-CERT or the About the NCSC page of the Dutch CERT | e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom
Internet regulation isn’t an effective and legitimate means to create a safe internet Setting up CERTs aren’t an effective means to create a safer internet, because most of the threats are a result of ‘social engineering’, which means that hackers use social cues to con people into believing frauds. People usually fall for this because of their own gullibility and naïveté, like in Nigerian email scams. [1] The most effective means of combating these threats is to educate citizens directly, the FBI already does this with Nigerian email scams. [2] People and corporations are primarily responsible for their own actions, which includes taking care of their own internet security by obtaining anti-virus software, and which also includes corporations making sure their websites are safe to use or else face liability charges if they turn out not to be. Moreover, CERTs are illegitimate. They are illegitimate because they facilitate the sharing of information on specific persons across private and public organizations and because they are hard to control democratically. For example: the US-CERT is an agency residing under the department of Homeland Security. Through the sharing of information with private parties, these private parties, unwittingly, run the risk of becoming one of the government’s watch dogs. Moreover, this sharing of information is hard to control democratically: much of the information could be classified as secret, which means that citizens have no way of verifying whether public and private organizations are complying with data sharing regulations. [1] Plumer, ‘Why Nigerian email scams are so crude and obvious’. 2012. [2] FBI, ‘Nigerian letter or “419” fraud’. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Not censoring helps Google’s business proposition and corporate identity Google’s corporate motto is ‘don’t be evil’. This is partly an issue of corporate identity, and partly a clever business proposition. In both cases, complying with Chinese censorship rules damages Google as a company. The key to Google’s dominance in the search market is that users know Google will always deliver the search results most relevant to them. By adhering to censorship laws, users will trust the relevance of Google’s search results less, which hence erodes Google’s business position as users will be more likely to try alternative search engines. [1] [1] Rebecca Blood, ‘Google's China decision is pragmatic, not idealistic’, January 2010. URL: | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
This doesn’t enhance Google’s business proposition at all Google already censors results all across the globe. It has been censoring digital piracy-related content since early 2011, but this hasn’t led to users abandoning Google for another search engine. [1] It has been leaving a backdoor open for the US Government, but this also hasn’t sent either users or employers packing. [2] Why should the small extra step of censoring according to China’s laws do so? [1] Sara Yin, Pcmag, ‘Google Censors Piracy-Related Terms from Search Tools’, January 27, 2011. URL: [2] Bruce Schneier, CNN, ‘U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google’, January 23, 2010. URL |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights The problem with Google censoring its results, is that in doing so, it is complicit in China’s repression of free speech: it adapts its own search engine to display only the results the Chinese government wants, thereby limiting its citizens’ basic human right to free access to information (a corollary to free speech). By avoiding this complicity, Google is taking a bold, praiseworthy step towards enhancing respect for human rights in China and with it, Google can set an important example for other businesses with dealings in China. [1] [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Google Challenges Censorship’, January 12, 2010. URL: | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
Not censoring doesn’t advance human rights in China at all Human rights in China are violated on a daily basis. For example, the incidence of people ‘disappearing’ for no apparent reason has been on the rise. [1] These human rights violations won’t suddenly end if Google were to stop censoring its results. What’s more likely to happen, when Google stops censoring results at google.cn, is that Google.cn will get shut down within days – thus, leaving Chinese citizens with no good way at all to access information, since google.com is on the other side of The Great Firewall and Baidu is a Chinese company fully compliant with the government’s wishes. By staying, Google can at least broaden the access to information the Chinese citizens have, something Google itself had acknowledged in 2006 when entering the Chinese mainland. [2] [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Enforced Disappearances a Growing Threat’, November 9, 2011. URL: [2] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Not censoring puts global pressure on China to change its free speech policies Google’s decision to stop censoring was world news, and has put internet freedom on everyone’s agenda – even so much so, that U.S. Secretary of State mentioned internet companies ganging up to censor the Chinese corner of the internet specifically as a threat to freedom worldwide in a recent speech. [1] This helps to inform ordinary citizens of other countries who may not know about the ‘great firewall’ what the Chinese government is doing. By making a high-profile decision like this, and by engaging and informing the governments and publics of free and democratic countries like this, Google increases the public and political pressure on China to change its ways. [1] Hillary Clinton, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom’, December 8, 2011. URL: | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
China won’t budge that easily China has already faced trade sanctions for its human rights abuses for years, in particular there are bans on arms sales by the European Union that are still in place more than twenty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre that precipitated them. [1] These haven’t helped a bit. [2] Why would a relatively small move like Google stopping its censorship work? Moreover: true reform in China has to come from within. When it’s forced from the outside, it will not be accepted. If Google stops cooperating with the government, reform-minded Chinese officials will have a harder time, because they will seem to be losing face in the eyes of more hardline officials. [3] [1] See debate on EU arms sales to china [2] James Dorn, ‘Improving Human Rights in China’, February 8, 1999. URL: [3] Shaun Rein, ‘Opposing View: Google’s Big Mistake’, March 28, 2010. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Google will help Chinese internet freedom more by staying As Google itself argued in 2006 when it first entered the Chinese domestic market; when Google is fully present in China, it can at least do its very best to allow its Chinese users as much access to all the information that Chinese users are allowed to look up. By expanding their access, Google can at least contribute to a broadening of the amount of information Chinese internet users can gather. The alternative is them relying on an even more censored Chinese search engine called Baidu, or having them try to access a heavily blocked, slowed down, restricted and monitored version of Google outside of China, for example google.com or the Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk. Having a locally accessible version of Google that is censored might not be optimal, but it’s better than nothing. [1] [1] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL: Last consulted: December 22, 2011 | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
Staying will not help Chinese internet freedom at all If google.cn was to be left uncensored, then within a short period, google.cn would lose its license to operate and will be pulled down. Chinese internet users will then have to rely either on Baidu, which provides more or less the same results as Google, or will have to try to break through the blockades of the Great Firewall to reach the Hong Kong-based Google. If Google does censor itself, it will only state ‘some results have not been shown’ – Chinese citizens still won’t know what has been hidden. Unless they then try to access the Hong Kong based Google, but then the Great Firewall will stop them anyway. Either way, Chinese citizens will be blocked from seeing what their government doesn’t want them to see, so what’s the difference? Google might as well stick to its principles and not censor itself. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: As a business, Google shouldn’t interfere with domestic politics Business is business and politics is politics – and the two shouldn’t mingle. When a company wants to operate in a foreign country, it should respect the government and its regulations. We require the same when a company wants to operate within our territory: suppose a big Chinese company came to our home country and suddenly started criticizing our domestic policies – these are the policies of the sovereign state whose territory it is, and outsiders have no place to tell it how to run itself. [1] [1] Nicholas Deleon, TechChrunch, ‘China has every right to be upset with Google right now’, March 23, 2010. URL: Last consulted: December 22, 2011 | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare. Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago. [1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL: Last consulted: December 22, 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Google can’t afford to abandon the Chinese market In 2010, the search market in China was valued at $1.7 billion and was expected to grow at an average of 50% per year for the coming few years. [1] After the 2010 incident, Google has been losing market share in China rapidly. [2] From a business perspective, Google just can’t afford to miss out on such a business opportunity: not only will it miss entering this market when it is growing, it will also forfeit a comfortable position in the search market from which it can build its other businesses, like gmail and android, the way it does in other countries. [3] [1] Melanie Lee, ‘Analysis: A year after China retreat, Google plots new growth’, Reuters, January 13, 2011. URL: [2] Reuters, ‘Google search share slips as Baidu gains report’, July 26, 2010, URL: [3] Kyle Baxter, ‘Android isn’t about building a mobile platform’, January 4, 2011. URL: Last consulted: December 22, 2011 | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google
Google’s revenues wont decline because of this Google as a company is still going strong – in the third quarter of 2011, it managed to exceed analysts’ expectations and posted impressive revenue growth. Most importantly, the figures showed that finally the revenue from its mobile and video advertising platform started to come in. This means that the revenue for Google is now starting to come from all over their business portfolio, instead of coming from the search platform alone. [1] This result shows that Google’s revenues won’t sag a bit because of this choice. Also, as argued above, by staying true to its company motto, Google actually strengthens, not weakens, its position with regards to the rest of the world – and possibly eventually in a democratic China. [1] Financial Times, ‘Google shares soar on higher earnings’, October 13, 2011. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A graduated response will be an effective deterrent Research has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP. [1] This shows that the threat of a possible disconnection together with a friendly warning is enough to stop most consumers from downloading from illegal source. The reasoning behind it is simple: consumers can now download without a cost, a graduated response mechanism first raises awareness scaring off those who are only casually downloading out of convenience and then heightens the expected cost of infringement and thus makes it more likely consumers will use legal sources. [2] [1] IFPI, Digital Music Report 2009. 2009. URL for PDF: [2] Olivier Bomsel and Heritania Ranaivoson, ‘Decreasing copyright enforcement costs: the scope of a graduated response’. 2009. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Volume 6(2), p. 13 – 29. URL for PDF: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
Consumers will find ways to evade detection Evading detection for most of the surveillance methods are relatively easy: consumers could start relying on proxy servers to hide their IP-addresses or start encrypting everything they share online to avoid being detected by fingerprinting-software. In fact, recent experience in France with its Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet (HADOPI) law suggests that despite a graduated response-policy, piracy is actually on the increase. [1] This shows that graduated response won’t do what it is supposed to do; stem online piracy. [1] Torrentfreak, ‘Piracy Rises In France Despite Three Strikes Law’, March 9, 2010. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state Copyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft. Furthermore, downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorized source creates an impossible market for producers of copyrighted content, because they have to ‘compete with free’. Why would the average consumer want to pay for a download from an authorized website, when she can get the same movie from a pirate-site for free? To build a commercially viable content industry online, we need to protect this industry from the unfair competition of the parallel market. [1] [1] Piotr Stryszowski , Danny Scorpecci, Piracy of Digital Content. 2009, OECD Publishing. URL for purchase: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
Downloading isn’t a crime Downloading content is not comparable to theft of material things, like cars: after downloading the original owner can still use his or her own copy. Moreover: governments have always allowed consumers some leeway for replicating content for themselves under the ‘private copying exception’ or ‘fair use’-policy. [1] Before the internet came along, this exception ensured it was legal that one person could copy a song from a radio broadcast transmission for personal use. Why should downloading a song from the internet be any different? Finally, research has shown that those who download the most from pirate sites are also the ones who buy the most music online legally – why would the content industry want to punish their biggest and most loyal customers?. [2] [1] Natali Helberger & P. Bernt Hugenholtz, ‘No place like home for making a copy: private copying in European copyight law and consumer law’. 2007. Berkely Technology Law Journal, volume 22, p. 1061 -1098. URL for PDF: [2] Ars Technica, ‘Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right’. April 2009. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine. Secondly, the consumer has ample time to change his or her behaviour: a consumer can insist on infringing copyright at least two times before the sanction takes place. The consumer can easily avoid being cut off (even temporarily), meaning the punishment likely doesn’t even have to take place. [1] [1] Barry Sookman, ‘Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times’, January 10th, 2010. URL: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
Graduated response is a draconian punishment Citizens these days rely on their internet connection for their everyday lives: banking transactions, filing tax forms, and other forms of essential communication are all done online. Cutting access to these basic services is a draconian punishment: it basically amounts to making daily life a whole lot harder. Even if essential services were to remain accessible to the offender they could lose access to things somehow considered less vital such as their online social life. The punishment in no way is proportionate to the ‘crime’ of downloading a song that would have cost 99 cents on iTunes. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: ISP will not cooperate with a graduated response policy The graduated response model requires cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. If just one ISP refuses, users will flock towards that ISP to be able to keep on downloading. Therefore there will always be an incentive to be the ISP that refuses so as to gain custom from others who have agreed to cooperate. ISPs will also have an incentive to not cooperate because the cost of monitoring and identifying is large, and significantly more so for smaller ISPs: initial estimates of the cost of graduated response for ISPs were around 500 million pounds over a period of ten years. [1] [1] Michael Geist, ‘Estimating the cost of a three strikes and you’re out system’, January 26, 2010. URL: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
ISPs will gladly cooperate with graduated response Almost a decade ago, ISPs engaged in a competitive battle to gain as much broadband penetration as possible. Now that markets have matured and broadband penetration has more or less ‘maxed out’ in developed countries, ISPs need to find new value propositions to attract customers. One of these value propositions is being able to offer high quality content at high speeds. To be able to offer this, ISPs will need the cooperation of content providers – who can ask something in return, like graduated response. [1] That this actually happens is borne out by the fact that in many countries ISPs are actually getting together to make sector-wide agreements, for example in the USA where the major ISPs have agreed to implementing graduated response. [2] [1] Olivier Bomsel and Heritania Ranaivoson, ‘Decreasing copyright enforcement costs: the scope of a graduated response’. 2009. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Volume 6(2), p. 13 – 29. URL for PDF: [2] David Kravets, Wired, ‘ISPs to Disrupt Internet Access of Copyright Scofflaws’, July 7, 211. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence. [1] [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
Graduated response can be done prudently Many companies have ‘Terms of Agreement’, violation of which automatically leads to cancellation of service. Suppose you don’t pay your library subscription for a year: no one would complain of ‘lack of due process’ if your subscription was subsequently cancelled. A Graduated response policy is no different. Moreover, the graduated response policy can be made to fit the rules of due process. For example, in the French HADOPI-law, after a third violation, the case gets referred to an ‘expedited judicial procedure’, typically used for minor traffic violations, after which that judge will decide. Compare this to the unfairness before a graduated response policy is implemented: copyright holders might detect and sue one single consumer and extract a very heavy penalty, whilst the rest of the downloading consumers got away. Both the uncertainty and the height of the fine made the situation before a graduated response-policy an ‘enforcement lottery’. [1] [1] Nathan Lovejoy, JOLT Digest ‘Procedural Concerns with the HADOPI Graduated Response Model’, January 13, 2011. URL: |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-piidfiphwu-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The graduate response policy constitutes an invasion of privacy by the state Graduated response would require huge amounts of monitoring and logging of all internet traffic using technical systems called ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) equipment. This means that a computer program will look in close detail at all of the information someone sends over the internet in order to check whether it violates some protocol, for example a ‘fingerprint’ of copyrighted data that the content creator put in. This means a copyright holder, or a third party paid by the copyright holder to monitor internet traffic, suddenly has access to everything every consumer sends over the internet. This is a massive violation of privacy. Given the fact that advertising companies are already using DPI illegitimately for targeted advertising, it is obvious that content companies will also feel tempted to ‘do more’ with all that data they suddenly have access to. [1] [1] Angela Daly, ‘The Legality of Deep Packet Inspection’, 2010. Presented at the First Interdisciplinary Workshop on Communications Policy and Regulation 'Communications and Competition Law and Policy – Challenges of the New Decade', University of Glasgow 17 June 2010. URL for download: | p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use
Graduated response is not a massive privacy violation Firstly, ISPs already use Deep Packet Inspection right now, to engage in what they call ‘network management’, like checking whether users aren’t hogging up bandwidth by downloading too much via peer-to-peer software. But moreover, it is hard to see how exactly every form of deep packet inspection is a privacy violation: the inspecting is done by automated software and only checks for infringements. If no infringement is detected, no one will know what was ‘in the information packet’. Take the example of monitoring for the presence digital watermarks: basically, the monitoring-software has a database of specific ‘watermarks’ that content holders put into their videos, for example a unique combination of pixels. The software only checks whether that combination is present. If it’s not present, the software has no way of ‘seeing’ the information itself. Hence, even though it might sound scary, the technology can be designed in such a way that one can prevent it from becoming privacy violation. [1] [1] see wikipedia: Digital Watermarking |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights. In our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership. [1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights. A right to the internet is the perfect human right to fill this gap. The internet is estimated to have over 35 billion web pages, [2] and the most recent digital universe study estimates that 1.8 trillion gigabytes would be created in 2011. [3] The sheer size of the internet means that it is the ideal medium for providing this right to access information. [4] The internet is also increasingly accessible to everyone making it possible to be considered universal; it is no longer something that the poor cannot hope to have access to. There are already over 2.1 billion people using the internet worldwide including 118 million in Africa. [5] [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 (n.b. this link comes up with a warning when opened, dont worry it is safe - ahelling) [2] World Wide Web Size.com, ‘The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet)’, 17 April 2012 . [3] McGaughey, Katryn, ‘World’s Data More Than Doubling Every Two Years – Driving Big Data Opportunity, EMC2, 28 June 2011. [4] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 [5] Clayton, Nick, ‘Internet has More Than 2 Billion Users’, TechEurope The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2012. | access information house believes internet access human right
The freedom of speech does not mean that there is a right to reach as broad an audience as possible. It does not mean there is a fundamental right to access the internet or any other individual medium of communication. If indeed there is some kind of ‘gap’ in human rights it does not mean that it has to be filled by creating some spurious new right for individuals to enjoy. If there was a lack of recognition of a freedom of readership then this is because there is no need for the human right to exist let alone in a form that privileges access to the internet over other forms of information access. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet access as a new human right. Access to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.” [1] The right to internet access can meet the necessary conditions to be a human right; as a right is should be universal, everyone should have access not just a few. The internet is becoming much more than just a tool but is becoming a fundamental part of society creating a new sphere of interaction that everyone has a right to have access to. Creating a right to internet access would be addressing a specific contemporary problem as with other human rights that are specific such as a right to basic schooling, enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Not having access to the internet is similar to not having basic schooling; it considerably narrows people’s options and their horizons. As Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the world wide web, argues "Given the many ways the web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty." [2] [1] La Rue, Frank, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, A/HRC/17/27, 16 May 2011, p.10 . [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012. | access information house believes internet access human right
Creating a human right specifically for internet access is an example of ‘human rights inflation’ where by every group wants their issue to be a human right and as a result human rights that are not necessary or are too specific begin to devalue the whole concept of human rights. [1] While there may be a new ‘society’ operating online the internet is certainly not essential for the existence of society. An online society is an interesting distraction for people and indeed there are many who spend immense amounts of time cultivating virtual relationships but this virtual sphere does not need a human right to enable it to continue. The internet is in some ways a free for all and there have already been internet social networks that have collapsed or been taken offline. This may be disruptive for those who relied on this network as their online society but they can simply find another. If unable to access the internet they still have access to other forms of society in the real world. Thus while forming and taking part in society is fundamental for humanity that this should be possible online is not. [1] Bleisch, Barbara, ‘The human right to water – normative foundations and ethical implications’, Ethics and Economics, 4 (2), 2006, p.8 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression. Freedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information. [1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self. [1] Callamard, Agnes, ‘Towards a Third Generation of Activism for the Right to Freedom of Information’, in Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, UNESCO, 2009 pp.43-57. p.44 | access information house believes internet access human right
This is taking the freedom of expression too far. A freedom to impart information does not mean the freedom to impart it through whatever medium the individual wishes simply through a method of communication. It is also taking it too far to consider that the government has a duty to prevent others from interfering with individual’s access as this is impractical. Governments should not have the power to interfere with private businesses that may wish to deny internet users access for things like not paying their bills. The third interpretation is interpreting this freedom much too broadly, human rights are meant to prevent the government from oppressing their citizens rather than forcing government to provide something. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet access is a commodity not a human right. If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does. | access information house believes internet access human right
Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all. If human rights are inalienable and inherent in humans then no technology can be a human right as not everyone can ever expect access all of the time. Certainly at the moment huge swathes of the world have no internet access and this does not mean that their governments are violating their human rights. The analogy might be given to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is a human right however we don’t need the aid of a car to be able to exercise this right the technology itself is unnecessary as we have an inherent ability to move just as we do to communicate. | access information house believes internet access human right
Human rights are as much aspirational as they are fact. When the universal declaration of human rights came out the majority of people in the world did not have “the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” [1] Having the internet as a human right will increase access as it makes it more difficult for governments to deny access and increases the priority to provide access. [2] [1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Article 21. [2] Wagner, Adam, ‘Is internet access a human right?’, Guardian Legal Network, 11 January 2012. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself. The internet is an enabler and so has little value on its own. [1] No one would consider the internet a human right if there was no content or information on the internet, what good would be a right to stare at a screen? It is not therefore access to the internet that is the human right it is access to information. The internet is obviously useful for this but it is not essential. If someone was denied access to the internet while being locked in a library would he or she really have had any right to information infringed? In such a case the only argument for a right to the internet is that it faster to access the information through the internet than it would be to look it up in the books that are all around. There cannot therefore be considered to be a right to the internet even as part of any right to information because the right to information would simply require that a government provides access to this information not that it has to be via the internet. Moreover as an enabling technology it is quite possible that the internet may at some point be out of date and replaces by some new method of storing information. As something that is transitory it does not make sense to consider there to be any kind of inalienable right to the internet. [1] Cerf, Vinton G., ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’, The New York Times, 4 January 2012. | access information house believes internet access human right
The conduit to access information is just as important as the information itself. There is little point in the information if we are cut off from the flows of that information and are unable to access it. [1] Having immense libraries may be an alternative method of accessing information for some but only for a tiny minority. As human rights are concerned with access to everybody the right an egalitarian method that allows everyone to access the information is needed just as much as the right to access the information. There is little point in a right to information without a corresponding right to access the internet or some other equally egalitarian method of obtaining that information. [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Human rights are dependent upon the state There is clearly not universal or even widespread acceptance of the idea that internet access should be a human right. Human rights are dependent upon the state, the desires of the community, and that depends upon the state’s socio economic context. [1] The internet cannot therefore be considered a universal human right because not all states are advanced enough to take responsibility for this right. International law is based upon several sources; state practice, customary law, treaties and judicial decisions. [2] None of these sources yet recognise internet access as a human right, indeed if state practice is taken as deciding if human rights exist then the whole concept of human rights is open to question. [3] [1] Turkin, G., Theory of International Law, 1974, p.81 [2] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, Chapter 3. [3] Watson, J.S., Legal theory, efficacy and validity in the development of human rights norms in international law, University of Illinois law forum, 1979, p.609 | access information house believes internet access human right
Human rights are meant to protect the individual from the state rather than being dependent upon the state. The state cannot decide what these human rights are and can only constrain human rights if it is necessary to protect the human rights of another. [1] Human rights are necessary precisely because states ignore the freedoms of their citizens so often. The sources of international law are irrelevant when referring to human rights as these are a higher law natural law that overrides a system of international law that has been created only over the last couple of hundred years. [1] Brown, Chris, ‘Human rights’, in John Baylis and Steve smith The globalization of world politics 2nd ed Oxford University Press 2001, pp.599-614 p.604 |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent. [1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
There have been wrongful arrests during the war against terror. Riwaan Sabir was wrongfully arrested under the terrorism act in 2008 for downloading an al-Qaida training manual despite the manual having been downloaded from a US government website and been for his master’s degree at the University of Nottingham. [1] Since the offence was online it is certainly possible that information from spying was a part of the cause for the arrest. It is true that we probably have less cause for concern when it is foreign governments doing the spying but this could still have consequences such as being denied entry if you wish to travel to or through the country. [1] Townsend, Mark, ‘Police ‘made up’ evidence against Muslim student’, The Guardian, 14 July 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is no physical risk In terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue? | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
Physical risk is not the only risk that people worry about. Denying someone their liberties such as privacy or freedom of expression does not pose a physical risk to them but that act is still wrong and it is still worth worrying about. Citizens have the right to go about their own business without their government spying on them. They should not have to concern themselves with what information the government does or does not have. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There are safeguards to prevent misuse In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1] [1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
In the UK case this is not all it appears. The Intelligence Services Commissioner is comparatively toothless, and both it and the Interception of Communications Commissioner are immensely understaffed for monitoring all UK intelligence agencies. Some experts such as Professor Peter Sommer have even suggested “I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask.” [1] Moreover this is trusting that ministers have the best interests of the people at heart, in the case of this conservative government which seems perfectly happy to introduce bills that erode freedoms such as the ‘snoopers charter’ this seems unlikely. [1] Hopkins, Nick, ‘William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.