BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This policy alienates the oppressive regimes and stifles the change that discourse and positive interaction can bring

When a repressive government sees its power directly attacked by Western democracies, and sees them actively trying to subvert their power by empowering dissidents they consider unlawful criminals, it will naturally react badly. These states will be less willing to engage with the West when it plays such an open hand that effectively declares their government, or at least its policies, illegitimate. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to use in nudging regimes toward reform.[1] Burma (Myanmar) faced sanctions for decades yet it was not western policies aimed at attacking the Burmese state that brought change rather it was engagement by ASEAN that brought about an opening up and rapid improvement in freedoms.[2] Harsh attack begets rigid defence, so the opposite of the change that is desired. It may not be exciting to make deals with and seek to engender incremental change in regimes, but it is the only way to do so absent bloodshed or other significant human suffering. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to curtail access to the internet for all. Again Burma is an example; The Burmese government cut off all access to the internet in order to prevent the flow of videos and pictures being sent to the outside world through blogs and social media.[3] Subverting government control just brought about a complete black out. Such actions when they occur a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools and knowledge. [1] Larison, Daniel, ‘Engagement Is Not Appeasement’, The American Conservative, 17 December 2012, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/ [2] Riady, John, ‘How Asean Engagement Led to Burma Reform’, The Irrawaddy, 5 June 2012, http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/5733 [3] Tran, Mark, ‘Internet access cut off in Burma’, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/burma.marktran
Circumvention of internet censorship will galvanize more severe, physical repression to compensate its need for security

Oppressive regimes will not be any less oppressive just because Western states seek to undermine their ability to censor the internet. They still rely on fear and force to control and cow the population into submission, and have honed many means of doing so. Technology has aided in doing this, including things like advanced surveillance equipment. But they have always relied heavily on, and have their greatest expertise in, physical repression and the strength of the security services. Even if dissidents are able to access the internet more effectively, the security services will feel it all the more necessary to crack down by more conventional, far less sightly means. At the same time as cutting off the internet in Burma the authorities were engaged in brutal arrests in a crackdown that killed several hundred dissidents, it was this that was more important.[1] Western governments do very little in this policy to actually effect meaningful change, because they do nothing to address the underlying institutions of oppression. Sure the internet is an important tool for organizing protest and opposition to the government, but they will now have to contend with a government with a heightened sense of threat that can only serve to harm them. [1] AP, ‘UK: Myanmar deaths ‘far greater’ than reported’, CNN, 28 September 2007, http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/myanmar.protests/
It results in Western companies getting kicked out of the countries, damaging significant Western businesses

Western businesses have been seeking entry into external markets, some of which could well be classified as oppressive. These firms have invested significant time, money, and manpower into building up their businesses. By enforcing this policy they will face huge challenges in growth, and even maintaining their place in these countries at all. Internet service providers and other technology firms in particular will suffer. Google and Yahoo have claimed that their efforts in these countries, much like those of Western governments, have helped soften regimes, much more than not engaging at all at least.[1] As Western companies face more and more competition in international markets they, and the Western economies of which they are a part, cannot afford to undermine themselves for the sake of making a political statement, one that would ultimately not necessarily serve to further the cause of freedom anyway. [1] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/15/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes
Repressive governments rely on internet censorship to stifle dissent and entrench their power

Internet censorship is a problem, but it is hardly the biggest one facing people in these countries.  Internet access is often limited to only the more affluent segments of most poor countries, and it is thus not the best mode of building grass roots movement for reform. This means it is often not even the best platform for dissent, it is notable that the ‘twitter revolution’ may have had some of the organisation through the internet but it was action on the ground through protests that overthrew Ben Ali.[1] At best Western intervention in this case would simply prompt oppressive regimes to utilize more conventional, often more violent methods of quelling dissent. [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘Tunisia’s revolution isn’t a product of Twitter or WikiLeaks. But they do help’, The Guardian, 19 January 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/19/tunisia-revolution-twitter-facebook
Western democracies have a moral duty to aid the liberation of oppressed people where it can effectively do so

Any country’s first duty is to its own citizens, and this includes countries that promote human rights and freedom abroad. It is difficult to see why pronouncements by a country should morally oblige it to act in a particular way. Rhetoric and high minded pronouncements are the bread and butter of politics, as is not living up to that rhetoric. These countries may act in response to the desire of their own people to act but this is then done not out of a duty to those in other country but to the electorate of their own.
This would make a powerful statement in favour of freedom of expression and against repression

As with all messages this will not make a “clear and emphatic statement about free speech” rather it will be a message that is muddied by hypocrisy. Autocratic ‘repressive’ regimes are not the only states to enable some form of censorship on the internet. Britain has a blacklist that is not even run by the government but left to a charity called the Internet Watch Foundation,[1] Iceland is considering banning internet pornography,[2] and western European countries have bans on holocaust denial which apply online as well as offline.[3] The message is then anything but clear. States on the receiving end of such action will rightly accuse their antagonists of the hypocrisy of wanting to control their own internet while not allowing other that they deem to be ‘less free’ to do the same. As a result the statement is if anything one of aggression that may cause retrenchment or even a dangerous reaction. [1] Davies, C.J., ‘The hidden censors of the internet’, WIRED, 20 May 2009, http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet/viewall [2] Associated Press, ‘Iceland seeks internet pornography ban’, guardian.co.uk, 25 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/iceland-seeks-internet-pornography-ban [3] See the Debatabase debate ‘This House would block access to websites that deny the holocaust’
This policy alienates the oppressive regimes and stifles the change that discourse and positive interaction can bring

Appeasement does not work to increase internet freedom. This has been shown time and time again with China. China has slowly been becoming more and more accepted into the international system; it gained Security Council membership in 1971, joined the WTO in 2000, and held the Olympics in 2008 to celebrate its new role on the world stage. Yet this has not meant they have relaxed internet censorship, far from it, it simply becomes more refined and difficult to detect.[1] Even China’s version of twitter is very fast at censoring posts, despite there being 70,000 messages per minute, almost a third of deletions are completed within 30 minutes.[2] Engagement simply shows that there is no cost to repressive regimes if they continue as they have been. It is therefore enabling them to continue their repression. [1] Roberts, Eric, ‘Where Censorship in China is Headed’, International Trends concerning Freedom of Information on the Electronic Commons, 2008, http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs181/projects/international-freedom-of-info/china.html [2] Mozur, Paul, ‘Just How Fast Are China’s Internet Censors? Very.’ China Realtime Report, 8 March 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/03/08/just-how-fast-are-chinas-internet-censors-very-a-new-study-finds/
Circumvention of internet censorship will galvanize more severe, physical repression to compensate its need for security

There is only so much that governments can do to oppress their people. Even if this policy did embolden repressive states to ramp up their other means of control, the genie of the internet would be out of the bottle. Without it, dissident groups would find it impossible to ever successfully organize and rebel. It is not a trade-off of one form of oppression for another, but is rather a recognition that Western countries must accept that oppressive regimes will take nasty decisions in reprisal in the short term, while being unable to maintain their firm grip on the public once it is armed with the information and organizational power the internet provides.
The law would be hard to enforce.

It would be difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation.
Social media can be powerful educational resources.

Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply ask over the internet.
Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.

This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances, drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying? Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation, the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to parents rather than educators.
The law would be hard to enforce.

The state wouldn’t need blanket access to teachers’ personal accounts. If suspicions arose that a teacher were breaking the law, as with all cyber-laws, the state could subpoena the information needed as proof. This law would work mainly as a deterrent for teachers to contact their students via social media. Knowing that they’d be committing an offence that could result in sanctions or losing their job, would be a strong disincentive against it.
A teacher-student relationship is not one between friends or equals.

According to Carol Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: “[e]ducators who use social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that it rarely has anything to do with student learning.[1]” Interacting with one’s teachers the same way as with one’s friends, sharing personal information, can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such ‘friendships’ were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the teacher’s role as educator and their ability to do the job. [1] Shakeshaft, Carol. “Using Social Media to Teach: Keep it Transparent, Open and Safe.” The New York Times. 19 December 2011. http://nytimes.com/schoolbook/2011/12/19/using-social-media-to-teach-kee...
Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct.

Social networking websites have proven to be particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles[1]. Teachers are already in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students. Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form of electronic contact1. By banning this form of communication, the law would make it harder for teachers with bad intentions to carry them through. [1] Choo, Kim. “Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences” Australian Institute of Criminology. 2009. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=250455
Acting as a warning signal for children at risk.

It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk1. After all, a teacher is regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private electronic contact between teachers and students is prohibited by law, the child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he is not supposed to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a parent or another adult about what is going on.
Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message.

Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking[1]? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page[2]. And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening. [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html. [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069559/Sharron-Smalls-chocolate...
Social media can be powerful educational resources.

Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that[1]. It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value. [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870410160457624871342074788...
The law would violate freedom of speech and association.

Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away[1]. A person’s status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights. [1] Solove, Daniel. “Missouri Bans Teachers from Friending Students on Social Networking Webistes.” The Huffington Post. 02 August 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-j-solove/missouri-ban-teachers-frie...
Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.

Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers.  These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation[1]. With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved. [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009. http://cdmc.georgetown.edu/papers/facebook2009.pdf
Marine protection

The UK government has turned the Chagos islands into a Marine Protected Area. This would cover 544,400km2 around the islands with a no take zone preventing any fishing in the zone. The MPA will protect 60-80,00km2 of reefs and eight endangered or critically endangered species.[1] As the biggest such protected area in the world this will be making a critical contribution to protecting global biodiversity. While the Chagos Island’s seas are almost pristine Mauritius has been overfished with the overfishing further damaging coral suffering from coral bleaching.[2] Mauritius has objected to the establishment of the MPA[3] clearly showing that they wish to engage in exploiting the resources of the islands rather than engaging in marine protection. [1] Sheppard, Charles, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot, 2011, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/ot_biodiversity2011_BIOT.pdf p.33, 35 [2] Harris, Ed, ‘Warm seas and overfishing his Mauritius lagoon’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-mauritius-environment-idUSL074825020070607 [3] ‘The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed 29/1/2014, http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1429
Mauritius is far closer

If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius.[1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge.[2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands. [1] Both distances taken from google search. [2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527, http://www.deepseadrilling.org/23/volume/dsdp23_14.pdf Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity
Uti Possidetis

This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921.[1] Which was the real colonial border? [1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013, http://www.lemauricien.com/article/mauritius-independence%C2%A0%C2%A0myths-and-realities%C2%A0
Self determination

The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent.[1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views. [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius