Ian Clarke wrote: > > > Freedom of Speech is all about > > > tolerating things of which you disapprove, since you expect > > > people who disapprove of your opinions to tolerate your right > > > to express them. > > > Is it? Okay fair enough. But what about tolerating those who are doing > > things contrary to the rights of other people?=20
> If all they are doing is expressing an opinion, then yes, you should > tolerate that. > > Seems to me like there is a fundamental gap between the right to > > expressing one's opinion and the right to distribute images, files, > > whatever. > And who decides what is a valid opinion, and what isn't? Your > government? You? The church of scientology? So I accept everything you say, Ian as regards opinions. I believe myself that I must respect the opinions of others. But there seems to be a level of contradiction in what you are saying. You are saying that "IF people ONLY express an OPINION THEN tolerate them" But surely the above statement depends on what we define as an OPINION. You then say ask the important question: "WHO decides what is a valid OPINION?" It seems to me that with Freenet that you are deciding that anything digitizable is a valid opinion. You are still drawing a line. Freedom of Speech as is gets defined as something you can actually say (okay maybe you could read out a UUecoded gif, but hey ....). Why stop at digitizable stuff. Why isn't the distribution of physical objects part of my freedom of expression, couldn't we say that me delivering a live sheep to your house should be incorporated into my freedom of expression, my right to express my opinion. Think of a future with 3D physical printers. It could be done right? I want to express myself by delivering cement to everybody in wales. I'm just expressing myself, right? > > Maybe the bottom line is that we have to make it free to distribute all > > kinds of data under any circumstances, which is what Freenet advocates, > > right? Why does that make me feel uncomfortable? Am I just some crazy > > facist who has to overcome his terrible inhibitions and embrace the > > brave new world? > I think that you need to accept that freedom of speech must apply to all > opinions, not just those with which you are comfortable. Yeah, you see I thought that I do accept that freedom of speech must apply to all opinions, but I thought that an opinion was a belief, or a judgement about something. At least that's what my dictionary says. Of course why should I accept the dictionary definition about what an opinion is when I can accept yours that anything digitizable is an opinion. I have always thought that society should be based on the maxim that "you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people to do what they like" I thought that made me quite a liberal, open and accepting person. I have a problem with people who do things that infringe on other people's rights. This process of extending the term of "opinion" to anything digitizable creates an odd situation where the expression of some opinions (say a digitized photo of me being brutally raped) can get in the way of my rights. Like what about my right to not have lots of people look at this photo of me? What about my right to privacy, to not have myself displayed to everybody in this way? I guess you are going to say that those are rights that I have to sacrifice so that we can all have complete freedom of expression, i.e. expression of opinions, where opinions equal anything digitizable. If you do say just that, then I think you are overlooking a complex philosophical problem at the heart of Freenet. I don't know that I believe that creating a system that ensures completely anonymous ability to distribute digital material is going to make the world a better place. I would say that actually engaging people of all sorts in dialogue such as this is the crucial thing, but there you go. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
