mailing list archives
Re: On Internet and social responsibility
From: <measl () mfn org>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl () mfn org wrote:
restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your williness to
give them "every right to speak"?
I'm honestly not certain, but I _think_ you are making the "argument" that
if I have a firewall in place, that I am engaging in the hypocritical act
of _censorship based on content_?
Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically
defined content in.
I would argue that this is incorrect, protocols are not "content",
however, I need not reach this, as the remainder of your position is
I can just as well have an argument that an attempt
to break into your system is a valid form of expression (and, in fact,
that argument was made in courts).
Free expression does not include the right to force others to act as your
messenger (as would be the case in the above example).
The fact, that this kind of message can be in many cases detected and
prevented automatically does not change the point that you are restricting
free speech (i.e. unlimited exchange of information) to some other
Free expression does not necessarily imply the free *exchange* of
information, rather it implies the right to *disseminate*
information. Whether or not a dialog ensues is totally dependent on
whether anyone desires to *listen*.
Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a
terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment.
The hosting of a terrorist website is a contractual agreement between the
hosting provider and the purchaser of connectivity services to allow the
purchaser to use the [ISP's] facilities to *disseminate* information. You
are *not* being required to *listen*.
Your argument is specious and disappointing - especially since you are
more often than not a reasonable, and logical, person.
sysadmin () mfn org
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
Re: On Internet and social responsibility Vadim Antonov (Sep 15)
Re: On Internet and social responsibility Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Sep 15)
RE: On Internet and social responsibility Roeland Meyer (Sep 15)
RE: On Internet and social responsibility Roeland Meyer (Sep 16)
RE: On Internet and social responsibility Greg Mirsky (Sep 17)