In message <[email protected]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>As a consequence, it is totally ridiculous that AFRINIC tries >to censor anyone, and we must not accept it. Jordi, I understand your reasonable concern, although on this occasion I do not share it for the simple reason that it does not appear that I have been censored in this instance. My message did go out, and thus I was free to speak my mind, which I unquestionably did. The presence or absence of my controversial message, in the archives and in perpetuity, seems to me altogether less consequential, in contrast, and is not a hill that personally feel compelled to fight over, let alone die on, as we say here. That having been said, I confess that I *did* previously complain here that one of my messages from a month or more ago never seemed to appear in the archives, and that I did feel censored at that time and with respect to *that* message. But now I am of the opinion that the absence from the archives of that messages was likely due to some technical glitch, and not to any deliberate decision on anyone's part. On that basis, I'd like to retract any comments I made at the time about that. To reiterate, my messages to the list do seem to be going out, people are apparently reading them (with varying degrees of support, dissent, or consternation) and thus I am not censored. If AFRINIC feels that its legal standing could be in some way harmed by its own act of effectively republishing, in perpetuity, something that could possibly be construed as a legal offense in AFRINIC's home jurisdiction, then it does not seem to me too awfully far out of line for AFRINIC to effectively redact the archives in some such limited instances. I would note also that even we here in the U.S. are still squabbling amongst ourselves about the so-called "Section 230" of the Communications Decency Act and the legal protections which it affords to entities and platforms that merely republish the words of others. The current law provides a carte blache blanket immunity to any person or entity that merely republishes the words of another, but there are many, on both the left and the right, who would have it be otherwise. In any case, I think that it would be a bit too presumptive for us to insist that this RIR, or any RIR, should engage in the act of republication, in a permanent archive, entirely without regard to the local legal framework. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
