Our Bill of Rights
The two lawmakers who spearheaded a protest in January against controversial antipiracy legislation said today that they want the country to adopt an Internet Bill of Rights. Such a document would state that all Internet users: 
 --Have the right to use the Web ("Freedom") 
--Have the right to use the Web without censorship or obstruction ("Open") 
--Should be treated equally while using the Web, an obvious nod at Net Neutrality ("Equality")

Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) proposal has been drafted along with the help of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who together have taken on the issue of Internet rights on Capitol Hill countless times, particularly in recent months when they championed an effort to abolish the Stop Online Piracy Act , or SOPA. While the two lawmakers are split on some issues, such as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) currently being considered in Washington, they both agree that the Internet rights of Americans needs to be protected during a day and age when lawmakers — especially those that are misinformed — are fighting for online regulations that could essentially eliminate freedom on the Web.

The Digital Bill of Rights:
1) The right to a free and uncensored Internet.
2) The right to an open, unobstructed Internet.
3) The right to equality on the Internet.
4) The right to gather and participate in online activities.
5) The right to create and collaborate on the Internet.
6) The right to freely share their ideas.
7) The right to access the Internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are
8) The right to freely associate on the Internet
9) The right to privacy on the Internet
10) The right to benefit from what they create

Want to contribute (via Madison) or stay up to date? Visit the link below.

Read + Share + Voices = Solutions
A Digital Citizen's Bill of Rights. I believe that individuals possess certain fundamental rights. Government should exist to protect those rights against those who would violate them. That is the rev...
Peoples Video Communications Company's profile photoDavis Shadenhand's profile photoAndres Soolo's profile photoWendy Cockcroft's profile photo
How do they deal with the tiny minority that spread and collaborate over things like abusive acts?
There are solutions that typically involve civil suits. Trying to outlaw trolling is opening a can of worms and ends up with lockdown. My Conservative side says, "Cry me a river!" but the other side says, "What about that campaign you launched to benefit that speechless kid? 'Nuff people hoppin' into the FB pages of the companies involved. What's the difference?"

That's your problem.
Mild trolling, I have no problem with - but the ones that leave sick messages on someone's memorial post are a bit harsh, and troll-ganging on someone whom is unable to cope can be deeply unpleasant.

I was more thinking the groups that share, discuss and produce child porn and IED information, as examples.
I've been harassed and outright persecuted as you describe, +Amber Petchey. It stopped when I dropped off the internet for a few months and abandoned the sites the trolls were on.

I'll have to write an internet safety post because this really is an issue. Meanwhile, lock memorial pages to friends or friends of friends.

The bad groups you speak of need to be infiltrated and taken down from the inside, not blocked.
It is sad to lose out on those sites though, or risk missing out on finding a new friend .

I enjoy being the anti-troll - I'm very hard to offend and am happy to debate a point if the troll is willing to be snared into showing a glimpse of intellect.

My question regarding those groups is how do you do that, whilst being respectful of the Bill?
The law enforcement agencies do that already. And yes, I really miss the sites I was on before, but wild horses couldn't drag me back because I know what's waiting for me.

Proper modding would have kicked the trolls out or moved them to another playground but the cowards wouldn't deal with them properly and were too weak to take them on.
Then perhaps you need to find a gang of anti-trolls to take back with you - reclaim the land that is rightfully yours.

Ugh, it was poor mods? I worked on a site like that for years before I got sick of it. I walked away and take quiet joy in the fact that the site pretty much collapsed after.
I tried that. The trolls worked by repeating lies and exaggerations about me until pretty much everyone I'd ever known either quit to avoid being sucked into it or turned against me — with predictable results. Whole subcommunities imploded. That's the thing they do: infiltrate and create havoc, then gloat about the destruction among themselves.

What amazed me was that all this was in plain view but the people involved never thought it would happen to them. I see similar behaviour and attitudes here on G+ sometimes but it's not as pronounced.
It's one of the reasons I like G+. We've had troll attacks here, but they are either chased off, or pushed so far that we bore them and they go away. 
I do not think such a document would serve any purpose.  It is vague; it does not explain who it is to bind (a government?  All governments?  ISPs?  Facbeook?), and in democratic countries, it is irrelevant because it discusses Internet as purely a social phenomenon, and the social rights are already covered with various constitutions and the UDHR.
Please explain that to those people who are trying to get us all under surveillance to please Big Content, e.g. SOPA, etc.
+Andres Soolo , and how do the courts get to find out what the people think, or what people are doing? They're not all-seeing ;)
+Amber Petchey: Studying the public opinion is not the court's job.  The courts' job is to determine and explain that if the constitution says "freedom of assembly", the legislators can't pass a lower-level law saying "except on the Internet".  And then refuse to enforce such lower-level laws, and enjoin other branches of government from enforcing them — as needed.
It's a way to pressure representatives to keep the internet free. What you do is ask them to sign it and tell them you will only vote for them if they do. If they then sign their names to bills that violate this you can call them on it.

NDAA violates the constitution. SOPA and CISPA also violate the constitution. Both have stalled under the weight of public protest.
+Andres Soolo , the point you're missing is that the law should be written FAIRLY. That's why we VOTE governments. As such, the lawmakers should listen to the people (and do, via petition) when we are telling them they are wrong. 
The internet is a global phenomenon, transcending all normal borders and boundaries - and as such, is very hard to adjudicate. What the governments are proposing is too harsh and risks the free environment to be found in this "alternative world". What IFM are after is something that allows the majority of the countries to be comfortable, and law abiding.
+Wendy Cockcroft: Why wouldn't existence and general respectability of the original ten amendments — which cover pretty much everything mentioned here and are more general to boot — be a "way to pressure representatives to keep the internet free" ?
ROFL!!! If SOPA doesn't convince you of the sheer venality of our reps and their lack of respectability, what will?
+Wendy Cockcroft: So, let's review your argument.
1. US representatives don't respect the Constitution.
2. US representatives would respect this newfangled document, which is a subset of Constitution.
3. ???
Both of the above are correct, but the SOPA and CISPA fights tell us that pressure works. Getting them to sign the document (pressure) and holding them accountable for any laws that threaten the internet as a breach of their promises, (more pressure) = better for the internet than crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.
I'm going to have to agree with +Andres Soolo on this one. While I like the idea of something like this I don't see it working as well as people think it will. The issues I'm seeing are more about the overlap of physical laws and restrictions and the internet. for instance how would this help to handle a person gambling online in a state with a zero-tolerance gambling policy? 

Edit: I guess the point I'm trying to make is more about how we should get our stupid state and federal laws sorted out before we attempt to impose them onto a place that doesn't really need them.
Zero-tolerance policies on gambling shouldn't apply on the internet. I mean, gambling is pretty damn stupid in my opinion because you never see casinos going out of business because people kept winning but that's no excuse to limit people's freedom to be stupid. /lecture.

Regulation is better; a mandatory limit on the amount that can be gambled per person with a three strikes policy for people who sign up under multiple aliases (and are caught, obviously) are possible solutions. It's the nannying I can't be dealing with.
And while regulation is better than restriction it's still worse than freedom. Who gets to decide the mandatory limit? Who has to watch the logs to catch the multiple alias-offenders? and who are we to push our rules and regulations onto the globe? 

we don't need watch-dog agencies or an internet bill of rights. We need something closer to a declaration of independence.
this one's a bit dated but it sure gets the point across. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

that being said I support the effort that was put into this bill of rights. but you're going the wrong way with it. We need help keeping the government out of the internet.
Okay, +Davis Shadenhand given that I sort of agree with you what solution do you propose? I'm on board with the EFF's declaration of Internet Independence.
Not quite sure where to go from here. I Just really don't like the idea of opening the doors for government like I think this bill of rights thing will do. 
By the way, 10 is strange from the perspective of a person who has an understanding of how Internet works.  It is completely expected coming from the perspective of a politician trying to figure out who are interested in Internet.  10 is a nod towards the MAFIAA people.
I've no idea how you got there, +Andres Soolo and I'm not going to pursue it. The only connection I can make is an old Bo Derek film. +Davis Shadenhand I think it's the floor, not the ceiling. The US Bill of Rights must have given the Founding Fathers a few headaches but it's a framework to work from.
Add a comment...