内容运营商没有法律或道德权限可以自行任命审查员,更不是自称是事实或真相的仲裁者—— Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes
CAPS发布了一份突破性的报告,证明了全球范围内对互联网进行全面大规模审查的令人震惊的现实,以及为个人提供切实可行的解决方案,以获得未经审查的互联网资源的开放获取。
报告说,全球大型公司已经悄悄推出了全面的大规模审查制度......这一推广活动已经完成,然而主流媒体......却以人为分歧的政治表面故事分散注意力,同时压制任何提及审查制度的事实!与主流媒体相互勾结的审查制度一定会阻止人们了解这一大规模事件。
该报告警告人们,如果现在不能发出强烈呼声阻止这一审查进程,所有人将很快失去基本人权。
搜索引擎唯一合法的作用是提供相关的搜索结果,以方便公众获取信息;社交媒体平台的唯一合法角色是促进公众获取通信。通过限制和审查来强制执行国家认可的主流叙述,服务提供者放弃了上述重要职能,从而破坏了自身存在的唯一理由。
报告强调了这种大规模审查对于所有学术界、科学、法律和司法等文明支柱的全面攻击。
该报告的副标题是“继续对事实真相进行独立研究的解决方案”,它给出了许多实用的工具来维护言论自由:反审查替代——Facebook和Twitter 的替代品:推荐Minds,Seen,Gab和Diaspora;Google, Bing ,Yahoo 的替代品:DuckDuckGo, Qwant, UnBubble, GoodGopher; youtube的替代品:Minds, Vidme, DailyMotion, and Vimeo
政府间替代政策研究委员会(CAPS)证明了这一点:主流“新闻”媒体的宣传叙事只禁止“审查”......如果由官方政府机构完成,或由近似垄断企业作为准公用事业机构完成,则是错误的...它完全无视国际法上更高的人权标准的存在......“
(A) All countries of the world have recognized the right to freedom of speech, and the right to freedom of “correspondence” as communications, both enforceable by the right to equal protection of law, as fundamental human rights, protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 19, 12, 7) and UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 19.2, 17, 26);
(B) International law imposes direct corporate and even personal liability for violations of human rights, subject to direct corporate and individual sanctions and penalties, under the UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights (Articles 10-11), UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights (Article 3(b)), and UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power (Article 8).
(C) All countries are required to enforce international human rights law both in domestic law enforcement and domestic Courts, under the UN Right to Protect Human Rights (Articles 9.5, 10-11). The United States Constitution confirms that “all treaties” – including UN human rights conventions – are “the supreme law of the land” and thus must be enforced by all American Courts (Article 6).
Comments