Gay Cruising Queens Nyc

The UN and wiretapping without

It has a certain effect on the organ printing RCS read the news UN recommends that it be withdrawn DDL on wiretapping.

Then one goes to read the press release , and does not know whether to have a laugh or get angry.

Let's see what complains Frank La Rue:

According To the current draft, anyone who is not accredited as a professional journalist can be Sentenced to Imprisonment for up to four years for recording Any communication or conversation without the consent of the Involved person, and publicizing Such information.

That is, if you log a call, or email, and make it public without the consent of those directly involved, get into trouble. This seems to me that fully reflects a constitutional right, namely that enshrined in Article 15:

The freedom and secrecy of correspondence and any other form of communication is inviolable. The limitations of these can only be done by a reasoned judicial authority with the guarantees established by law.

Well, so if I record a phone call and the public, violates the constitutional right of a person. This right is also stipulated in the International Convention of Human Rights:

1. No One Shall Be Unlawful or subjected to arbitrary interference with His privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on Unlawful His honor and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the Law Against Such interference or attacks.

The Convention stipulates that even * read * must intervene to protect the privacy of a person, where there is such interference, of course, the copy that they gave to Frank La Rue, this article had been deleted.

But let's move on.

Frank La Rue says

Such a severe penalty will Seriously Undermine all individuals' right to seek and impart information in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Now, here we go in freedom of expression, "seek and impart information", it also cites Article della Convenzione internazionale, e cioé:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Purtroppo, nella fretta della citazione è stato omesso il paragrafo 3 dell'articolo 19 della convenzione in questione:

The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For RESPECT of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

That is, the freedom of expression is limited by the rights of others and the right to privacy (Article 17 of the Convention) is a law that limits Article 19. So, really I do not see the contradiction in this.

But we go on reading the statement.

La Rue Also Expressed Concern Regarding the introduction of a penalty for journalists and publishers who publish leaked the content of wiretapped materials before the beginning of a trial. "Such punishment, Including up to 30 days in jail and a penalty of up to 10,000 euros for 450,000 euros for journalists and publishers, is disproportionate to the offense. "
" These PROVISIONS May hamper the work of journalists to Undertake investigative journalism on matters of public interest, Such as corruption, given the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy, as Repeatedly Highlighted by the Council of Europe, "the Special Rapporteur noted.

La Rue is in agreement that there is an offense, and explains that these are 'disproportionate'. This is absurd: if I want a sentence to be effective, must have a deterrent function, otherwise, just as happens now, the publishers pay a small fine and publish the eavesdropping that can not even now publish.
Then, I do not understand what has to do with the length of processes, in this case: the intercepts remain secret until the beginning of the process. Or perhaps there is also the problem of the investigations are taking too?

Come again later.

noting the Nationwide Demonstrations by journalists and ordinary Citizens Against the draft law on 9 July 2010, the expert recommended the Government to "refrain from Adopting the draft law In Its current form, and to engage in Meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders, In Particular journalists and media Organizations, to ENSURE That Their Concerns are taken into account. "

So try to understand: at this time, the "journalist and media Organizations" are a party; they are receiving interceptions that could not be published, and publish, and publish the fact that they sell lots of copies of more. They are the ones who are still breaking the law.

"I stand ready to Provide Technical Assistance to ENSURE That the draft law is in compliance with international human rights standards on the right to freedom of expression," La Rue said. "I look forward to engaging with the Government of Italy Regarding a possible fact-finding mission in 2011 to Examine the situation of press freedom and the right to freedom of expression in Italy."

This is the most beautiful of all, not even deserve a comment.