Michael and all,
You are essentially correct Michael. The William Walsh's and ICANN's
of the world would have all of us give up our rights to freedom of thought
and an open forum for expression of those thought in the DNS, unless
it fit's their vision. I believe this subject that these sort of folks/kooks
believe in was in Mine Kampf by Adolph Hitler....
As a jew, I am keenly familiar with this malignant behavior. I believe it
is clinically referred to as megalomania.
Michael Bryan wrote:
> On 4/22/99 at 11:41 PM William X. Walsh wrote:
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:17:11 -0700, James Santagata
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>I see and I understand your point. So then I'm sure you would
> >>agree that since a business has a right to decide who to affiliate
> >>themselves with, it is absolutely okay to refuse to do
> >>with black people? Or to do business with ONLY orthodox Jews, but
> >>never Mormans, etc.
> >
> >There is a big difference here. And you know better.
>
> The difference is not that great William. At most it is merely
> a matter of scale, not a matter of attitude or intent. Intolerance
> is intolerance, and just because you are not guilty of it in issues
> of race or religion does not make it any better when you are
> guilty of it in other areas.
>
> >>I would host them just to make it clear that it is not my
> >>function to censor other's expression. If they can pay, they
> >>can play.
> >
> >And then you would accept the risk of what such exposure could do to
> >your company.
> >
> >Most don't want to be associated with it, and were outraged when it
> >was discovered. I'm sure Chuck heard from at least one of them today.
> >:)
>
> Mob hysteria. Wonderful. I agree with what Roeland said, there is
> far too much reactionary bullcrap. There are -far- too many examples
> of this, and I'm not going to spend time listing them (it's getting
> a bit off-topic anyway). But yes, society seems to be more and more
> accepting of a Police State mentality, where the reaction to something
> that we don't like or that bothers us is to make it go away, or to
> pass laws that ostensibly "protect" us at the expense of eroding our
> civil rights. Bleah. For the longest time, my email signature was
> a quote from Benjamin Franklin, which seems relevant at the moment:
> "Those that would sacrifice essential liberties for some small measure
> of perceived safety deserve neither."
>
> Taking actions to prevent any given domain from having a home on the
> net because it offends you in some way -is- a sacrifice of liberties.
> In this instance, it happens that the liberties belong to those you
> don't like. Next week, though, the tables might be turned, and somebody
> might use the same tactics to cut you off because -you- offended -them-.
> What would you say then?
>
> Put it another way --- Would you make your customers sign an agreement
> that says they agree to only publish material that you do not object
> to? That if they publish a controversial opinion on a "hot potato"
> subject, and their views are counter to yours, then you will cut off
> their access?
>
> Would you accept a contract from a company that asked -you- to sign
> such an agreement?
>
> 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
