
White House's Claims That the TPP Would Curb Internet Censorship Are Fantasy - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/white-houses-claims-tpp-would-curb-internet-censorship-are-fantasy
======
gpm
It's only semi related, but Michael Geist has been going through the TPP and
writing about problematic parts of it for Canada. He is very focused on
Canada, but I imagine a similar list could be generated for any non-american
country. Below is a link to the latest post, which contains links to the rest
at the bottom:

[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-the-
tpp-...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-the-tpp-
day-47-agricultural-sectors-faces-hits-and-misses/)

------
fweespee_ch
As much as like I EFF's coverage in general:

> And we will continue to press our partners to allow digital information to
> cross borders unimpeded. We are working to preserve a single, global
> Internet, not a Balkanized Internet defined by barriers that would have the
> effect of limiting the free flow of information and create new opportunities
> for censorship.

This is technically correct. It doesn't create _new_ opportunities for
censorship. These opportunities always existed.

> The TPP illustrates these shortcomings well. Its free flow of information
> rules would only be enforced for foreign enterprises, and only those
> entities based out of countries that have signed the TPP. So if a country
> were to enact a law banning some type of online content, the TPP's free flow
> of information rules would do nothing to prevent the enforcement of that
> censorship against websites or platforms that are locally-owned in that
> country.

Yes and _nothing_ prevents that already. The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty
equation, it is a trade treaty.

The TPP makes things worse but such weak attacks against statements that are
technically correct are largely ineffective.

Posts like these are much more effective as they show legitimate problems that
could have been resolved favorably (for the general population) in a trade
treaty:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp-
an...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp-and-your-
digital-rights)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-
dras...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-
extends-criminal-penalties)

~~~
frandroid
> The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty equation, it is a trade treaty.

Except that trade treaties become supranational constitutions when enterprises
in other countries can use trade courts to enforce treaty clauses over
national governments' own legislation and constitutions since they usually
surrender their sovereignty to these treaties. These kinds of effects have
already been amply documented with regards to the WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA and
others. This is political science mainstream. See: Stephen Clarkson, Uncle Sam
and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State (2002), among
many others.

~~~
fweespee_ch
Please provide evidence I can sue the US government as a purely domestic
entity under NAFTA arbitration.

Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true.

~~~
cariaso
I can't provide specific evidence for you to sue the US Govt over NAFTA, but
your comment

> Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true.

seems overly broad. I think there are established cases which disprove that.
All it has to do is have an impact across the border, not necessarily trade
across it.

[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stateco...](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm)
is full of interesting examples with Hunt v Washington State Apple Ass'n
(1977) being one of many that seems relevant.

And
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)
for an (arguably) purely domestic california marijuana law.

~~~
fweespee_ch
The topic is trade treaties, not the Commerce Clause.

You seem lost on the context...the Commerce Clause isn't relevant to the
impact of a trade treaty on domestic policy in regards to domestic companies.

------
snowwrestler
I find the EFF to be so weird sometimes. They do great, essential work on
protecting encryption, but then occasionally post outright dumb stuff like
this (from the linked post above):

> Its free flow of information rules would only be enforced for foreign
> enterprises, and only those entities based out of countries that have signed
> the TPP.

Yes, because _it 's an international trade agreement._

~~~
navait
They're a lobbyist group. Lobbyists on our side, but they still are fighting
for one tree in the forest of governing.

Policy is often a trade-off - sacrificing one good for another, and the EFF
fights for only a few goods. In this case, I don't feel the EFFs concerns
outweigh the benefits of the TPP, though obviously it's a lot bigger than
that.

I don't think we can say just because the EFF supports an action, it is
something we should do. But they should still fight for their trees to the
end, even if we decide not to support it.

------
Esau
I am convinced that this administration would say just about anything to get
this passed.

------
afarrell
Does an annotated copy of the TTP exist anywhere?

~~~
gohrt
[https://github.com/takahashim/tpp-
agreement](https://github.com/takahashim/tpp-agreement)

