RE: On Internet and social responsibility
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to those who rebel for cause). Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment? How it's applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to spread its ideas? Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it? Would your company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them with 24*7 customer support? If not, please try to explain to me, where's difference? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Andy Walden [mailto:andy@tigerteam.net] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:02 PM To: David Schwartz Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: On Internet and social responsibility 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 Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to those who rebel for cause).
I think we all understood this, however, my understanding is that this site is on an American server, owned by an American company, and is physically in the U.S. - correct me if this is wrong.
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment?
(1) My customers benefit from my freedoms. (2) If we are going to spout off about free speech, then we need to PRACTICE it.
How it's applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to spread its ideas?
See above. People on my servers are covered by the laws of my country.
Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it?
I would have NO problem with Laden using my servers either.
Would your company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them with 24*7 customer support?
Absolutely.
If not, please try to explain to me, where's difference?
Regards, Greg
-----Original Message----- From: Andy Walden [mailto:andy@tigerteam.net] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:02 PM To: David Schwartz Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: On Internet and social responsibility
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.
-- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a little phiolosophy to ponder on: Coflicts are generally of two kinds: one is conflicts for resources (territory, access to water, etc), the second kind is "religious" conflicts, caused by one or both sides having a belief incompatible with other's and including imperative to kill "infidels". Most conflicts seemingly of of the second kind are in fact conflicts of the first kind, in disguise (with religious/ideologic rhetoric used to justify actions). The ethnic conflicts are never really a standalone category (ethnicity is commonly and falsely used as a proxy indicator for person's beliefs or affiliation). The conflicts of the first kind are usually amenable to resolution by negotiation, as soon as a commonly acceptable contract framework is found, and can be effectively prevented by getting standards of living high enough so that people are contented with what they have. Conflicts of the second kind cannot be resolved by negotiation. Simply because negotiation does not remove the cause of contention - i.e. incompatibility of beliefs. The only way to eliminate such conflict for good is to modify or extinguish the appeal of the idea. This is done by slowing down the distribution of that idea or by making posessing the idea a very clearly poor proposition compared to having the competing idea. (Note that, by definition, the other party does not _see_ the errors of their ways; they have to be shown - and nobody changes their viewpoints willingly without very good reason). Achieving conversion of the other side to a mindset compatible with our own requires either physicall killing of all carriers of the idea, or careful propaganda war, combined with a system of incentives and disincentives. So it very much boils down to a pair of things abhorrent to the libertarian mind - violence or speech control. Make your choice. --vadim
one side's rebels are the opposition's terrorists. the problem is that there are violent sides. resist the cycle of violence and hate. randy
one side's rebels are the opposition's terrorists. the problem is that there are violent sides.
resist the cycle of violence and hate.
randy
mae-west#config t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. mae-west(config)#resist the cycle of violence and hate. ^ % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. mae-west(config)# resist the cycle of baiting & off-topic posting --bill
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:30:14PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
mae-west#config t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. mae-west(config)#resist the cycle of violence and hate. ^ % Invalid input detected at '^' marker.
mae-west(config)#
resist the cycle of baiting & off-topic posting
login: croberts Password: Last login: Fri Sep 14 17:10:03 from 1.1.1.1 --- JUNOS 4.3R1.4 built 2001-01-19 07:26:27 UTC croberts@xxxx> configure Entering configuration mode [edit] croberts@xxxx# edit resist the cycle of cisco and juniper ^ syntax error, expecting <statement> or <identifier>. resist the cycle of cisco and juniper Cheers, Chris. -- |=========----- -------=======| | Chris Roberts (croberts@bongle.co.uk) | |=======------- -----=========|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:08:51 -0400, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to those who rebel for cause).
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment?
Because the mechanism that would shut the company down would be for the U.S. government to go after that company for the content of their speech. If you imagine some other mechanism, then perhaps other arguments would apply.
How it's applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to spread its ideas?
Because if American companies want to spread the speech of foreign terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United States should not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it? Would your company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them with 24*7 customer support? If not, please try to explain to me, where's difference?
No, I wouldn't. The difference is, my company is mine and it's my right to choose what speech I wish to carry over my network. Another network carrying someone else's speech is not mine, and the principle of freedom of speech demands that I not use my government as a club to suppress the speech of others. I realize this might be considered a complex distinction by people not from this country. But it's absolutely fundamental to the philosophical principles on which America was founded. Foreigners sometimes think it's nutty. DS
participants (7)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Chris Roberts -
David Schwartz -
Greg Mirsky -
measl＠mfn.org -
Randy Bush -
Vadim Antonov