The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) -- which is an autonomous body of the Organization of American States -- rebuked Chile's Supreme Court for a ruling in which a woman lost custody of her three daughters because she was living with a lesbian partner. The IACHR said the ruling was a violation of the woman's human rights. In 2004, Chile's Supreme Court ordered Karen Atala to hand over her children to her estranged husband. The court had argued that the girls could be psychologically damaged if they stayed in a same-sex household. Karen Atala then took the case to the IACHR. The commission said, "The Chilean state had violated Karen Atala's right to live free from discrimination." They also called on Chile to make reparations. Furthermore, the commission urged the government of Chile to take steps to adopt legislation, policies, and programs to prohibit and end discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Karen Atala was not seeking to regain custody of her children. Her lawyer said, "She doesn't want her daughters to go through everything they went through six years ago." Her lawyer said that Karen's aim was to make sure the government took steps towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. The government of Sebastian Pinera, who just took office in March, has indicated that they will accept the IACHR's recommendations. A spokeswoman said, "The government is not going to discriminate against anyone based on their ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation." During the election campaign, Mr. Pinera had said that the rights of all people should be protected, "whatever their sexual orientation." Gay rights groups in Chile are hoping the government follows the IACHR's recommendations. These groups also think this is an opportune moment for the president to prove that he meant what he said, and that he will put his words into action. (Full Story)
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Comcast and against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when they stated that regulators have limited power over web traffic under current law. The FCC had wanted to require all internet service providers to give internet users equal access to all content, even if some of that content clogged the network (though the companies could still perform "reasonable" network management to unclog congestion and to block unlawful content). In other words, they were against companies like Comcast blocking or slowing access to specific sites. Their "net neutrality" principle is that all internet content should be treated equally by network providers. They didn't want companies like Comcast to block or slow access to sites that are competitors (like blocking or limiting Skype because it's competition to Comcast's telephone service). Comcast said they have the right to slow its customers' access to a file-sharing services, like BitTorrent (which is just part of the problem).
This decision could encourage Congress to change the law in order to give the FCC the explicit authority to regulate internet service. However, many conservative Republicans would be opposed to the idea because they're already against giving the FCC more power and they believe that internet provider companies should be able to decide what services they offer and at what price (yeah, because that's the job of the government -- to step aside while companies abuse their power. It is within the purview (and one of the duties) of the government to set up corporate regulations to protect consumers. We all saw a couple years ago what transpires when you have lax government regulation and a blind acceptance of the invisible hand of the free market...And we've seen throughout history the problem of monopolies. Regulation is needed). Another possible strategy would be to reclassify broadband service as a sort of basic utility, which is subject to regulation (like phone service).
There are also concerns that the ruling could raise obstacles to Obama's plan to increase Americans' access to high-speed internet. Last month, the administration released the National Broadband Plan which proposed a shift in billions of dollars from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that help pays for internet access in those areas. Legal observers argue that the court decision suggested that the FCC does not have the authority to make that switch. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment