North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: On Internet and social responsibility

  • From: measl
  • Date: Sat Sep 15 16:22:58 2001

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 [email protected] 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?

Firewalls??? I must have missed an installment :-)

> It's
> 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_?

> You're a hypocrite.

If the above argument _is_ how you reached this, then you're nutz.

> Now, when did slander become a protected speech? 

Now I _am_ certain I missed an installment... *What* slander?

> Learn laws of your own country _before_ you try to teach the rest of the
> world how to live by them.  The right to speak freely assumes the
> necessity to bear responsibility for what you said.  In that particular
> case there's an unambiguous attempt to incite a major international
> conflict by misplacing blame for the heinous crime.  This is a dangerous
> form of slander, souring relationships of two large nations; not just
> innocent ravings of a deranged.

In all earnest, do you have first-hand knowledge that the aforementioned
speech is slanderous (i.e., untrue and made with malice)? 

We allow LOTS of accuracy-questionable speech here - my argument is that
attempting to pull things down because you dislike the content is
ethically *wrong*, and possibly illegal (here, in the U.S., YMMV).
> 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.

A point I have made repeatedly.  I think you are missing the crux of my
argument - I do not wish to see _content based_ censorship, regardless of
whether the censoree is pro Amerikkka, pro Israeli, pro Palestinian, anti
Arab, pro Martian, whatever.

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

None.  What I *am* surprised at is that so many countries have signed on
for Shrub's new campaign of terror and destruction.

> --vadim
> PS	BTW, if you do not understand yet, those guys are not kittens,
> 	they are confirmed terrorists.  And I'm putting my life to risk
> 	for daring to raise the question of getting their propaganda
> 	mouthpiece down.

Understood, nevertheless, I believe your energies would be better served
refuting their claims, rather than trying to censor their message. 

J.A. Terranson
[email protected]

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
first place...