On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Trevor Timm <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, I can't really think of a worse way people can advocate for free > expression than banning people from this country with views that are > different than theirs - no how repugnant those views are. >
There are better ways to restrict trade than limiting visa issues -- but I think the intent was to put the power of restricting this into the hands of the State Department who might be assumed by the originator to be more sympathetic than the Department of Commerce, say, or Congress. Although I can see that this would be a way to do a fiat end-run of that variety it's not right, for the reasons you mention. It opens us up to some nasty criticism that could do more damage in the end. The right thing to do, as painful as it is, is to educate the right parties as to why these things are not pragmatic in the long run for anyone to use, including state side, as mechanisms for control. And then push them back in the market here too. We regulate the marketplace when we find harmful products -- items that produce antidemocratic things or false information are among the things we restrict. False advertising, paying off voters, all sorts of things are regulated by law that have to do with information flow or restriction. If we want to get private company censorship profits on this list we need to form strategies to get it included in those categories, and figure out how to successfully and effectively get it past the assymetrical influence we would be countering in DC. yrs, > -- > Shava Nerad [email protected]
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
