Læs mit debatindlæg i Dagbladet Information om “Positiv særbehandling kan fuldende ligestillingen.” Et citat om USA: “Mens vores mødre kæmpede for retten til at være mere end nogens sekretær, fik min generation retten til at arbejde så meget, at der aldrig blev tid til at stifte familie…Her kan Danmark stå som rollemodel.”
Summary: Human rights scrutiny is a necessary component of any effort to ensure that communication technology can be effectively adopted and used. This is particularly true when the means of communication are shut down during a democratic upheaval in one country or cut off for 10 minutes on a television set in another.
The author proposes a model to solve dissemination and access problems based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. While Autronic AG v. Switzerland stimulates the market to support innovation and dissemination of technology, Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden supports the adoption of that technology without unjustified restriction by the state or private individuals. Together these cases can be interpreted as sending a signal to all innovators, disseminators and users, that no matter what type of communication technology is used, there exists a general right of access to all forms of information.
The legally inclined may wish to read the orginal article.
For a detailed discussion of the right to receive information, which is a subset of the right to freedom of speech, read Robin’s earlier article.
The European Court of Human Rights oversees the human rights of 800 million Europeans. The Court’s judgments are legally binding on 47 European countries. It is not to be confused with the European Court of Justice which enforces European Union law on the 27 countries which comprise the EU.
Each year approximately 7,000 migrant farmworkers from Latin America, Haiti and the American South, pick apples, peaches and cherries in Southcentral Pennsylvania. Many are unable to break out of the poverty cycle. Come learn why America’s farmworkers remain the poorest of the poor and hear about two other case studies of migration and il(legality).
See the original “Harvest of Shame,” a CBS special on migrant farmworkers. Sadly, the cycle of poverty has not changed much.
The Supreme Court’s decision is indeed a big win for the Obama Administration with a unique American solution to a problem already solved in Europe, that of near-universal health care. One way of securing this win is to develop a nation-wide notion of the right to health care in order to counter libertarian trends. This will be the subject of my next legal blog.
I decided not to write anything additional about the decision, because frankly, my previous blog on A Decision Against Obamacare Could Foment A Revolution, adequately describes the worrying introduction of an undefinded notion of individual rights into commerce clause jurisprudence. James Stewart, (a former professor of mine at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism), has written an informative piece in the New York Times on the decison and its conservative implications for both the commerce clause and for the taxing and spending clause. The 193-page decision is available on the U.S. Supreme Court website.
Following oral arguments at the Supreme Court, a consensus has emerged that the individual mandate is in jeopardy. Before this rush to judgment becomes a tsunami, let us consider the legal consequences. After all, the justices are not rock stars, but public servants.
If politics win, the results will be more troubling than the unrealistic parade of horribles that dominate today. Though not as colorful a soundbite as being forced to buy broccoli, a decision against the mandate could foment a revolution.
Lecture: Wednesday, May 2, 2012.11:00am-13:00, University of Southern Denmark in Odense, Room U24
Deemed the most important lawsuit in a century, the case against ObamaCare will determine the survival of universal health care and influence the outcome of the presidential elections. The key issue is the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which requires all legal residents to buy health insurance. The lawsuit pits 26 states joined by private parties, which advocate for individual freedom and state’s rights, against the federal government’s vision of the most politically and economically feasible solution to America’s health care crisis. The Supreme Court will issue its decision at the end of June. In this lecture, the possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s decision will be discussed.
Everybody has written about the Supreme Court case on healthcare. But I find Ronald Dworkin’s piece in the The New York Review of Books the most interesting. Enjoy.