Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: On Internet and social responsibility
From: Christian Kuhtz <christian () kuhtz com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:23:34 -0400

Vadim Antonov wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl () mfn org wrote:

And do what exactly?  They have every right to speak, even if you don't
happen to like the message.

Hmmm :) Now, are those the same people who set up firewalls?  It's
restricing free speech of crackers, you know?  Where's your williness to
give them "every right to speak"?

You're a hypocrite.

WOAH.  Wait a minute, Vadim.

Just because you (or anyone else) may have a right to free speech in your
particular jurisdiction and circumstances doesn't mean you have a right to be
received in my (or anybody else's, for that matter) ear canal or understood in
my heap of synapses.  Or that you have free access to airwaves etc etc.

Now, let me tell you how it looks like from Russia: US is asking for help
in dealing with terrorists, but does not want to curtail it's own support
for terrorists waging a full-blown war on Russia.  This is the message
millons of people there get by the very fact of that site's existance.


You know, you do have the right to ignore 'free speech' and proceed as if
nothing happened.  No matter what the 'container' of 'free speech' had inside.

The application of slander in a free speech context is a quite problematic
area.  Again, this really belongs into a U.S. constitution discussion rather
than here.

Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed
anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm?

There are obviously a myriad of reasons, not the least the rather complicated
relationship between Russia and NATO.

I think that we would be all better off if Russia, the countries represented
through NATO and the rest of the world unite in a common goal.  

Personally, while I'm outraged at these incidents, do believe supposedly
peaceful smoothtalking isn't going to make any difference in this matter, I am
very troubled by the invocation of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.  It
sets a very dangerous precedent.  I think NATO is an antique and needs to
change with the times, but that's a seperate discussion.

I think a response by force is needed.  I don't believe anything but a
sustained campaign by many means is going to be effective.  I think that
'effective surgical strikes' is an oxymoron and that this world (the U.S.
included) needs to accept that dealing with this problem will incur
significant losses if we hope to make any difference whatsoever.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]