Non è un principio già implementato in pratica in Europa? Intendo dire che il fatto che uno Stato/Governo affermi che una limitazione ad un diritto umano/libertà fondamentale (sia essa la libertà di espressione o altro) è imposto sulla base della "sicurezza nazionale" non significa neessariamente che tale valutazione non possa essere contestata di fronte ad un giudice (o altri sistemi appropriati a seconda dell'ordinamento). O mi sbaglio? Ciao, Andrea On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Blengino <blengino@penalistiassociati.it>wrote:
E’ il meta principio al n° 10 quello più interessante! ****
C.****
** ** ------------------------------
*Da:* nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it [mailto: nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] *Per conto di *J.C. DE MARTIN *Inviato:* venerdì 27 gennaio 2012 3.08 *A:* nexa@server-nexa.polito.it *Oggetto:* [nexa] FreeSpeechDebate****
** **
Seize this chance to debate global free expression We are all neighbours now.
Through the internet and mobile phones, we can reach four billion other people. This offers unprecedented chances for free expression.
Join us, wherever you are, for a global conversation. Read and criticise our 10 draft principles. Explore controversial examples. Hear the thoughts of others. Have your say, in whatever language you choose. You will be heard.
Timothy Garton Ash and an international team based at Oxford University
http://freespeechdebate.com/en/
****
1 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-1/>****
We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-1/> ****
2 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-2/>****
We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-2/> ****
3 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-3/>****
We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-3/> ****
4 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-4/>****
We speak openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-4/> ****
5 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-5/>****
We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-5/> ****
6 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/>****
We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/> ****
7 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-7/>****
We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-7/> ****
8 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-8/>****
We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as is in the public interest. <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-8/> ****
9 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-9/>****
We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate. <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-9/>****
10 <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-10/>****
We must be free to challenge all limits to free expression justified on such grounds as national security, public order and morality.<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-10/> ****
** **
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro