Forwarding thread to chat. On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:22:26AM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. > > I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, > we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when > no babes are present, we usually talk about sex ;-) > > Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) on a lot of > topics, we fully agreed. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. > But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may > strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept > of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a > more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this > respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more > honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.
Popular opinions as to the sanctity of freedom of speech ALWAYS shift when one points out specific objectionable content. Throughout most of the world the big thing in PR terms is child pornography. But racism is a popular second. Especially in Europe, I agree. We (UK) just passed a law prohibiting 'insightment to religious hatred'... > > I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should > be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such > books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this > censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be > for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* > opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you > totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument > it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise > that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this > leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's > a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, > are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so > absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another > dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their > feelings? Most people support freedom of speech as long as it does not interfere with any other concern, just as they support environmentalism as long as it does not mean they have to give up driving. > > These arguments do not hold any sense, and what's more, forbidding an opinion is > EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions > that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The > difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about > it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are > allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After > all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if > he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The > REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one > alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in > conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy > to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, > and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that > should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that > revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to > express that opinion). Not necessarily. I can know that I am right about some topic and still believe that it is wrong to prohibit opposing views, and that my own views will ultimately survive as long as there is a level playing field. For example, in the context of religion. > > I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other > people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to > forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the > power shifts?). > > > > Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing > all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. > > Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why > I'm doing all this. And I guess, this is the answer. I'm doing this, because > everyone has a right to express his opinion, and I can't stand it that others would > try to impose their will on others, even with the best of intentions (as with my > friends). This project has the ultimate potential: it derives people, and, as an > extention, governments, of the *power* to impose their will/censorship on others. > Are people telling crap? Well, make something that debunks what they say, point. But > don't forbid it, because that's exactly what THEY would do if they are in power. Right. If censorship is allowable for anything, somebody has to decide what is objectionable and what isn't. And that's the government. And they should never have that power in a democracy. And in a non-democracy, the need for a means of anonymous uncensorable freedom of speech is even greater. > > Yes, it's the potential of making the power that the government (and corporations, > and, yes, my friends) seem to think they have the perogative of, to become totally > obsolete, that made me interested in Freenet. With a system as Freenet (when it will > be fully working ;-), they can shout and do all they want, my ideal of a free > society with a free flow of opinions will be there (at least in cyberspace). There > might be drawbacks, as with any technology (and it's consequences), but all by all, > it's worth it. > > <end rant> -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
