Michael and all,
Well said Michael, very well said indeed. You follow my sentiments
as well as it appears James's as well. This has been the slippery
slope that Mr Walsh and the ICANN to a even greater extent would
have us follow none the less. One that is repressive, and in stark
disagreement with the White Paper and the concepts of freedom and
democracy. You should read the ICANN's Accreditation Policy
requirements for Registrars in particular. They are an affront
to liberty and justice, as well a froth with disception and disenfranchisement
of individual freedom of belief ant thought. SImply appalling!
Michael Bryan wrote:
> On 4/22/99 at 9:40 PM William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:27:17 -0700, James Santagata
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>As much as people may find these domain names repugnant, (and I do,
> >>too) I find it more repugnant that people would even consider censorship.
> >[...]
> >I have let those who are providing services to these people know
> >exactly how this could affect their image and reputation. Most are
> >very concerned about such issues and are responding quite positively.
> >The ones that don't will have their failure to act made public along
> >with their contact information so others who find it repugnant can let
> >their displeasure be known as well.
> >
> >This is the same type of public pressure that has been used in the
> >past when trademark holders have crossed the line. It can be used for
> >many thing quite effectively.
>
> And just where do you draw the line? You apparently think it's ok
> to bash/harass/threaten a company because they are providing services
> for a group or individual that is doing something that you feel is in
> poor taste and/or insensitive, and not "politically correct". Does it
> then follow that it's ok for service providers to be harassed/bullied
> into shutting down services for a liberal/progressive group in order
> to keep some ultra-conservative faction happy, just because that faction
> happens to be a vocal minority?
>
> That is a very real, dangerous, and ugly slippery slope that you are on.
> If service providers allow various outspoken factions to force them into
> removing sites that express views or attitudes that are offensive or
> objectionable to some group of people, then you will eventually be left
> with a very -boring- Internet, one which has very little diversity or
> true freedom of speech.
>
> Why do you even care whether or not that site exists? If it personally
> offends you, don't go there. One of the major problems society seems to
> have always had to one degree or another is some level of inability to
> handle/allow diversity, an inability to "agree to disagree" and leave it
> at that. Instead, we engage in genocide, wage wars, torture and harass
> those who we don't like, and do everything in our power to destroy that
> which we don't understand or agree with, rather than accepting diversity
> as a natural part of life. Frankly, it sickens me, at -all- levels.
>
> Those who do so under the guise of "moral superiority", by acting as the
> moral/ethical/thought police are the worst of the lot. In fact, those
> that truly think they are doing a world a favor by "protecting" others
> from these dangerous/offensive ideas are usually the most dangerous
> practitioners of this behaviour. It's easier to ignore or write off
> somebody who is just plain insane or evil --- it's the ones that have
> "the power of being 'right'" on their side that are often the most
> persuasive.
>
> There are cases where there is arguably a moral/ethical obligation to
> stand up against some group or practice. If a group is inciting others
> to engage in violent acts, then they should be opposed, to protect future
> potential victims. If a group is actively attacking another group, or
> engaging in violations of basic human rights, then they should be opposed,
> to protect those being attacked. On a smaller scale, if a company is
> failing to treat its employees fairly in some respect, then pressure can
> be brought against that company to provide more equitable treatment.
>
> But in all of these cases, action should not be undertaken lightly, and
> never just because somebody's actions offend you. In the case of domain
> names and web sites that are of questionable taste, and certainly offensive
> to some people (or even many/most people), taking actions to try and
> "wipe them off the Net" is a -serious- undertaking, with strong repurcussions.
> You are infringing upon their rights to freedom of speech. Unless they are
> actively harming you or others, or threatening to do so, why is it so bloody
> important to squash them?
>
> Ignore them. It's easier and causes less hypertension. Or if it -really-
> offends you, then attempt to engage the domain -owners- in conversation,
> trying to convince them that what they are doing is wrong for some reason.
> But don't take punitive actions against them by trying to get their domain
> dropped by their current provider. That's no better than a fascist
> government shutting down a newspaper because it prints stories that cast
> the government in a negative light.
>
> Michael Bryan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
