Hmmm

[Steve Wainstead]

"John van V." wrote:
> 
> Everybody on this planet has a constitutional right to free speech since the
> internet now affords all rights of free expression to all peoples who have
> internet electrons running across their national borders.

yes, in a publicly owned forum... I think this one is privately owned.

sw

> 
> It was designed this way, and you dont need anybody's assurances to assume that
> these rights are inalienable.
> 
> This ideal is very real, and will become even more so when broadband combined
> w/ ipv6 makes every household an applications provider service.
> 
> Hopefully perl will be there to help effect the final banishment of censorship,
> facist or otherwise.
> 
> --- Soren Andersen <soren.andersen at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 00, an entity purporting to be D Roland Walker
> > [D Roland Walker <walker at pobox.com>] wrote [regarding Re: Hmmm]
> >
> > > [JoshNarins writes]
> > > > I'm sure there is no legal reason stopping me from speaking the truth,
> > >
> > > Yes, the truth is the best defense in a lawsuit.
> > >
> > > But there are very good reasons, both legal and practical, to avoid
> > > any type of derogatory imputation on the list.
> >
> > There are -- no argument there. At the same time, there are also very good
> > reasons, fundamental and crucial, for strenuously working to preserve
> > Josh's right to post such a message here. You can be sure of one thing, I
> > personally will not stand by silently and see this list censored in such an
> > across-the-board way as what I read into the statements made here. That
> > in itself is illegal, and more importantly unethical; it violates very basic
> > premises of our legal system and our civil society.
> >
> > I have a right and an earnest need to know when there are business people
> > or business organizations (especially the latter) who are criminal in fact,
> > in
> > policy and in execution, and whose principle representatives are in fact
> > mentally unbalanced or exploit those they come into contact with in an
> > outrageous and unethical way.
> >
> > I have as a working person and a potential client or employee a strong need
> > to be allowed to read material that offers me the chance to hear about
> > experiences of other people in my position, people who far too often are
> > rolled over, chewed up and spit out a mangled mess by business
> > organizations (precisely because they are single individuals), who,
> > collectively in the times we are living in, are often displaying a more and
> > more glaringly brazen  apparent belief that the collective human activity
> > they engage in as employees of a corporation places them above the spirit
> > (not just the *letter*) of laws that society has mandated and principles of
> > humanistic fairness and ethics that individual human beings are required to
> > show each other.
> >
> > > Most importantly, it is off-topic.  I hope the soon-to-be moderator
> > > will discuss it with me in private mail.
> >
> > The notion that "the most important thing" is that this message was "off-
> > topic" may be a statement that the author will one day want to rethink. I
> > would say that more close to accurate truth would have been for this
> > individual to write "For ME as an individual with some vested interest in
> > this list, the basic underlying life-attitude i bring to this is that i must
> > try as
> > much as possible to make this uncomfortable matter someone elses'
> > problem, not mine; and to try to ensure that I can likewise dispose of such
> > even more easily in the future."
> >
> > The most important thing is how we live as a human being, and that does
> > not entirely exclude the requirement that we function as thinking human
> > beings who confront ethical dilemmas head-on and strive to come to our
> > own conclusions about rightness and wrongness and what basic principles
> > must be emphasized in a particular case, most often, yes, at the expense of
> > other principles. Surely any Net-based mode of communication has the
> > potential to be exploited by crackpots who abuse the power technological
> > development has placed within their grasp (I have been a personal target of
> > such and I know full well whereof I speak). That still does not mean that
> > certain areas are "off-limits" when it comes to ethics and judgment about
> > rightness and wrongness of human conduct, merely because the major topic
> > is employment or professional activities and announcements.
> >
> > Specifically, "Business" is just an arbitrary label we give to certain
> > categories of human endeavor and actions that nonetheless are not basically
> > exempt from ethical evaluation. Being involved primarily in "business" for a
> > living does not mean one is somehow exempt from basic responsibility as a
> > human being -- a responsibility to NOT entirely hand over discriminating
> > (between right and wrong) thought into the hands of so-called "experts".
> > Far worse than a lawsuit collectively awaits a society the majority of whose
> > citizens take this route of washing their collective hands, 'opting-out' or
> > copping out entirely on facing right-and-wrong head on in their day-to-day
> > experience.
> >
> > When someone says "that cannot be discussed here because someone might
> > be sued," they are exhibiting a brainwashing  or an effect of coercion easily
> >
> > more effective than anything ever accomplished by the defunct Soviet
> > system (although not different in fundamental spirit). They are saying
> > cowardice -- cringing, petty, narrow-minded self-interest -- is "normal"
> > and "to be encouraged as the norm" and that anybody who stands up with
> > something to say about right-and-wrong outside of the abused and
> > perverted arena of the Courtroom as it presently exists is a dangerous
> > deviant. I am getting damn concerned about it. I'd like to register my
> > opinion that not all the technological development nor all the material
> > prosperity in the world will render the lives of those (or their children, or
> >
> > their children's children) who allow such a society to come into being,
> > ultimately to remain "safe" and "comfortable" lives.
> >
> > At the same time, it wears down the energy of *anyone* when there is a
> > constantly flood of unsubstantiated negative characterization on a medium
> > like this. Josh, I have to say to you that talking about someone you have
> > had business dealings with behind his back is not the first-rate way to
> > handle yourself. "First-rate" can get you a black eye or lose you your job or
> >
> > get you killed. Yeah, sometimes --seldom but it happens. Point is that just
> > being a noisemaker isn't something to get too personally secure or puffed-
> > up about. Confronting a creep face to face and THEN explaining to them the
> > error of their ways --making some noise -- that is "first-rate." It gains
> > oneself and everyone else, in the big picture, a lot more than merely
> > sounding off on an email List.
> >
> >     soren andersen
> >
> > --
> > "Some lawyers have been telling people that
> > you have to get permission before you link
> > to something. That's a terrible affront to
> > free speech."
> >         - Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of
> >                     the World Wide Web
> >
> 
> =====
> John van Vlaanderen
> 
>       #########################################
>       #    CXN, Inc. Contact:                 #
>       #    john at thinman.com, www.thinman.com  #
>       #    1 917 309 7379 (cell, voice mail)  #
>       #########################################
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com

-- 
Steve Wainstead, programmer, | "When will the rhetorical
Times Company Digital        |  questions all end?"
1120 6th Ave, NY NY 10036    |      -- George Carlin
(212) 597-8067               |