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 18:20:35 2001

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 [email protected] wrote:
> > > 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_?
> 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
fatally flawed.

>  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
> parties.

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.

> --vadim

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...