On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 02:06:54PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote:
> "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.
Because a sheep isn't information. Think about why "Speech" is
important, and what "Speech" does.
> "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.
Had how exactly can one person transferring information to a willing
recipient for that information, hurt anyone else? And I want a strict
causal link (recall that the arguments against homosexuality, for
example, often revoloved around the act of buggery "offending God", the
same is true of the Spanish Inquisition, and most other opressive acts).
Ian.
PGP signature
