Search results

Il lavoro ha ad oggetto il tema della regolazione di Internet, affrontato sotto due aspetti intimamente legati: la governance e i diritti on line. L'Autrice si interroga sulla possibilità di immaginare il cyberspazio come un luogo scevro da regolazione e sovranità, come un ordinamento giuridico "nuovo e diverso", dunque indipendente da quello reale. Le questioni che attengono alla governance della Rete suggeriscono l'analisi di più modelli di regolazione: self-regulation, regolazione eteronoma - nazionale e sovranazionale - e co-regulation, modello figlio di un approccio multi-stakeholder. Da quest'analisi, risulta evidente la necessità di un intervento regolatorio della Rete, specie in ragione della più immediata implicazione che ne consegue: l'impatto sul grado di tutela dei diritti di libertà. Infatti, regolare Internet significa innanzitutto garantirne l'accesso, tanto al mezzo (banda larga), quanto ai contenuti. Pertanto, l'Autrice si interroga, in primo luogo, sulla possibilità di configurare il diritto di accesso a Internet come nuovo diritto sociale, come pretesa effettiva nei confronti del soggetto pubblico. In secondo luogo, si domanda se l'accesso ai contenuti immessi in Rete possa essere configurato come il nocciolo duro della libertà di manifestazione del pensiero, come tale incomprimibile in sede di bilanciamento di valori. Tale valutazione risulta preliminare alle osservazioni consegnate nell'ultima parte del lavoro, che s'incentrano sulle diverse questioni attinenti all'esercizio della libertà di manifestazione del pensiero in Rete: diffamazione, stampa e tutela del buon costume on line. L'Autrice analizza le scelte operate dal legislatore, valutando la ragionevolezza di una regolazione non sempre aderente alla realtà e suggerendo discipline orientate al rispetto dei principi di uguaglianza e certezza del diritto.

(Intervento al Séminaire International "Innovation et formation pour le développement humain", Camerino, 18-20 gennaio 2010, organizzato dal Comité Scientifique Inter Agences des Nations Unies pour la coopération au développement humain).* Presentato dal Dipartimento di Studi su Società, Politica e Istituzioni.

The article begins with the redefinition of complexity and risk. Indeed, phenomena such as earthquakes, pandemics, ecological emergencies, and issues related to the development of technology highlight the unique and reciprocal relationship between complexity and risk. However, modernity endeavoured to simplify complexity and to erase the connection of the latter with any issue concerning risk. Despite its negative results, whose ineffectiveness and dangerousness have at the present become unmistakably clear, the attitude in favour of simplification succeeded in becoming the forma mentis of modern science, politics, culture, ethics, etc. Yet, in the last decades a new trend seems to have arisen, namely the one focusing on the "governance" of complexity and of the related risks. If considered under a socio-political point of view, its aim is to succeed in efficiency, whilst maintaining democracy. This can be achieved through the advancement of dialogue, the appreciation of diversities, and the enhancement of pluralism. Hence, the pars construens of the article focuses on the notion of responsibility, and tries to highlight its fruitfulness for the socio-political "governance" of complexity.

The article begins with the redefinition of complexity and risk. Indeed, phenomena such as earthquakes, pandemics, ecological emergencies, and issues related to the development of technology highlight the unique and reciprocal relationship between complexity and risk. However, modernity endeavoured to simplify complexity and to erase the connection of the latter with any issue concerning risk. Despite its negative results, whose ineffectiveness and dangerousness have at the present become unmistakably clear, the attitude in favour of simplification succeeded in becoming the forma mentis of modern science, politics, culture, ethics, etc. Yet, in the last decades a new trend seems to have arisen, namely the one focusing on the "governance" of complexity and of the related risks. If considered under a socio-political point of view, its aim is to succeed in efficiency, whilst maintaining democracy. This can be achieved through the advancement of dialogue, the appreciation of diversities, and the enhancement of pluralism. Hence, the pars construens of the article focuses on the notion of responsibility, and tries to highlight its fruitfulness for the socio-political "governance" of complexity.

The article begins with the redefinition of complexity and risk. Indeed, phenomena such as earthquakes, pandemics, ecological emergencies, and issues related to the development of echnology highlight the unique and reciprocal relationship between complexity and risk. However, modernity endeavoured to simplify complexity and to erase the connection of the latter with any issue concerning risk. Despite its negative results, whose ineffectiveness and dangerousness have at the present become unmistakably clear, the attitude in favour of simplification succeeded in becoming the forma mentis of modern science, politics, culture, ethics, etc. Yet, in the last decades a new trend seems to have arisen, namely the one focusing on the "governance" of complexity and of the related risks. If considered under a socio-political point of view, its aim is to succeed in efficiency, whilst maintaining democracy. This can be achieved through the advancement of dialogue, the appreciation of diversities, and the enhancement of pluralism. Hence, the pars construens of the article focuses on the notion of responsibility, and tries to highlight its fruitfulness for the socio-political "governance" of complexity.