Huh??

I read this report as simply advocating the expansion of human rights norms. It’s about a million miles away from forming the basis of any sort of intervention based on any sort of “international law”. It’s not the basis of any sort of treaty or international agreement. No nation has signed on to it. You do know that a UN policy committee does not make international law unilaterally.

So, even if it was adopted enthusiastically by the UN and became part of the discourse on human rights, what would the impact be on any nation’s domestic law? Do you think the UN simply alters domestic law this way?

And what does the scary statement “declared against international law” mean anyway? What international law? Declared by whom? Enforced by whom?

Boy you do like to leap headlong down the slippery slope, and get the rabble roused, don’t you.

And what terms of service do you mean? Certainly, not non-payment of your cable bill, as your original post insinuates.

Yes, some of us have read the report.

You are correct that it does talk about government shutdowns of the internet. However, it also talks about governmental funding of internet and wireless nets.

The report is based on the idea that freedom of speech is a basic human right. Because the internet is used to spread “free speech,” governments should not restrict speech on the net, but should also fund and maintain nets to support that speech.

It is there that the UN makes a fundamental mistake. A “right” and the “service” to exercise that right are not the same thing. The UN tries to say they are.

Perhaps you should read the article and rethink this post.

Now if you want to complain, see the exceptions listed in the report (section 25). Despite the claim that they are only exceptional situations, they are broad enough to pretty much allow governments to censor at will. Making the report pointless.