North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: On Internet and social responsibility

  • From: Christian Kuhtz
  • Date: Sat Sep 15 16:30:40 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?  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.