본문 바로가기

깃발

따각따각 대 클릭클릭 (Horse vs. Internet)



단추하나 : cyberspace에 관한 특별한 법리가 필요한가 논쟁 Easterbrook(1996) vs. Lessig(1997)


..the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules. Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses, or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows. Any effort to collect these strands into a course on 'The Law of the Horse' is doomed to be shallow and to miss unifying principles.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Horse

http://www.lessig.org/content/articles/works/finalhls.pdf



단추둘: 인터넷 접근권이 인권인가  UN(201) vs Vint Cerf(2012)


technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf


결국 인터넷은 가야하는 저 세상(new space)인가 이 땅 위의 도구(new tool)인가?


우리가 궁리하여야 하는 곳은 life in cyberspace/ 혹은 life in realspace 인가 

아니면 life in itself 인가



단추구멍 


이러한 점들에 비추어 볼 때, 인터넷 매체에 의한 정치적 의사표현을 제한하는 이 사건 법률조항의 위헌성에 관한 논란은 장차 인터넷 공간에서의 기술적 발전이 거듭되고 인터넷이 국민의 생활과 더욱 밀접해질수록 더욱 확대, 심화될 것으로 보인다. 

헌법재판소 2011. 12. 29. 2007헌마1001등 공직선거법 제93조 제1항 등 위헌확인 사건의 결정문 중에서