On Internet and social responsibility
Found on a website hosted in US by a US service provider:
Manpower resources of Muslims and powerful ideological stimulus of resistance, the control above the basic power resources of the world, the geographical position and an area of movement, finally will destroy USA. War will come in the house of each American.
And it already will be the collapse of that America, which we know and which is realized by Americans. The first disturbing symptoms of arising enmity and split of America already is available.
This is from the inverview with the spokesman of well-known terrorist Shamil Basaev, known for personally taking hostage hundreds of patients in a hospital, among other things (the spokesman is Movladi Udugov, the guy who threatened to drop an airplane on Kremlin). http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/14/news4.htm Hosted by XO Communications - do not bother them, i already alerted their staff. Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this propaganda? Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for that site. [If you decide to read the entire article - the "so-called peacemaker" Boris Nemtsov mentioned there is a prominent pro-Western politican in Russia, and (used to be, changed his mind after WTC attack) a leading proponent of negotiations with Chechen militants. A shining illustration of what you get for trying to negotiate with terrorists.] Please, if you host websites, take a closer look at what you are hosting; you may help to find leads for the investigation. --vadim
Sorry for the no-op content, but I had to share this. jm
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
This is from the inverview with the spokesman of well-known terrorist Shamil Basaev, known for personally taking hostage hundreds of patients in a hospital, among other things (the spokesman is Movladi Udugov, the guy who threatened to drop an airplane on Kremlin).
There is nothing wrong in criticizing the united states. Nor is there harm in different opinions. The response to propaganda by someone else isn't to try to censor that propaganda, but to make people aware of dissenting opinions. Sure, these guys sound like nuts, but we have free speech in our country.
http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/14/news4.htm
Hosted by XO Communications - do not bother them, i already alerted their staff.
As have I. they should not take the site down, they should not treat it special in any way. We have free speech in this country. Besides, I found the link interesting, just seeing how rebels view whats going on... Each seems to be blaming their own enemies as possibly causing WTC. So far, I've heard Israel and Russia blamed! Its also scary just how little information there is, the misunderstandings and propaganda elsewhere. People celebrating, without knowing what WTC actually was. Or believing that we're living in fear, when we're furious. Or believing that there is some oncoming war against muslims, not realizing that we have millions of muslims in our country, just as furious as everyone else. Funky URL. Keep 'em coming.
Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this propaganda? Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for that site.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --- Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906 That is the strength of america. The fact that we allow and even encourage other, even critical, viewpoints to exist. Communication and contrary viewpoints are the key. Communication so that a population knows the atrocities committed by their own members. Make these guys revolted by the terrorists in their own ranks and hopefully they will help us suppress them. Scott BTW, I'm an american and feel no affiliation whatsoever to any aggrieved ethnicity or religion in the world. I am furious now, but for good reason. I think they're all nuts. PS. Please let us not forget: First They Came for the Jews First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- Pastor Martin Niemller with: s/jews/terrorists/ s/communist/muslim/ s/trade unionist/dissentor/ The US is no more immune than anywhere else.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this propaganda?
Maybe becuase they believe that censorship of opposing opinions is BAD?
Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for that site.
And do what exactly? They have every right to speak, even if you don't happen to like the message.
--vadim
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson 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 first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Now, when did slander become a protected speech? 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. 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. Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm? --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.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, 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?
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. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson 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 first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
measl@mfn.org wrote: [..]
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.
You may want to check the international press for a reality check. The outrage is most certainly shared, the sign off on a participation and the extent of which in "Shrub's new campaign of terror and destruction" is by no means a done deal at this point. If you need pointers, I'll be happy to provide them. Cheers, Chris
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl@mfn.org 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 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). 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. Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment. --vadim
Vadim Antonov wrote: [..]
Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically defined content in. 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).
Sure you can have that argument, but whether it is likely to succeed is a completely different question. Not to mention the other problems such an argument would face, one needs to consider that there are certain requirements speech has to meet to afford constitutional protection as free speech.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl@mfn.org 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 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).
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to listen. If people could demand that I listen to them in the name of free speech, there's no way that I could allow them to have free speech.
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.
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment.
No, absolulte free speech means that absolute right to use what is yours to use without discrimination from the government based upon the content of your speech. Private citizens, on the other hand, need not listen if they don't want to -- that's part of freedom of expression too. If an instrusion attempt is speech, it's like shouting in someone's ears. The discrimination is not based upon content -- I would have on complaint if they published the intrustion in the New York Times rather than using it against *my* computers. Your freedom of speech ends it my ears. DS
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do with you or me and what we tell each other. Actually Freedom of Speech means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do with you or me and what we tell each other.
Of course it does!!!
Actually Freedom of Speech means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
What are you talking about? What would government censorship be other than an attempt to control or limit U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications?! If you have some definition of 'censorship' other than attempting to limit or control what people can say to each other, I'd love to hear it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, individuals are guaranteed the right to use what is theirs to express those ideas they wish, which is exactly what I said. (If you were agreeing with me, ignore this. But it sounds like you are disagreeing with me.) DS
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Andy Walden wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do with you or me and what we tell each other. Actually Freedom of Speech means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as [supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free Speech". -- Yours, J.A. Terranson 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 first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl@mfn.org wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as [supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free Speech".
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a difference. Basically my point is that if I restrict what you say, its not a violation of Freedom of Speech, only if the Government restricts speech. Btw, I would only try to restrict speech if it was directed towards me and not welcome. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Andy Walden wrote:
I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as [supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free Speech".
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a difference. Basically my point is that if I restrict what you say, its not a violation of Freedom of Speech, only if the Government restricts speech.
Actually, if I understand it correctly (and of course, IANAL-larvae), this is not *always* true in the U.S., although this would hold for the vast majority of private causes.
Btw, I would only try to restrict speech if it was directed towards me and not welcome.
Personally, I have no problem with anyone saying *anything* (of course we are assuming here that it is said in "good faith", regardless of how tasteless, wrongheaded, or just flat out wrong it may in fact be), provided they are using their own press/website/whatever to say it. While I realize that it may cause the firestorm, I hold that SPAM is will usually qualify as OK by this definition. Hey, I have a delete key for those I don't want to listen to...
andy
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson 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 first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 measl@mfn.org 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
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson 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 first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Hmm. 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. Cheers, Chris
participants (7)
-
Andy Walden -
Christian Kuhtz -
David Schwartz -
Jon Mansey -
measl＠mfn.org -
Scott A Crosby -
Vadim Antonov