On Hillary and Freedom of Speech By the way, just to add a bit to that last item -- a proper discussion would be lengthy indeed -- the key to the analysis in this particular context (in my mind, anyway) is "political" speech.
We can all definitely have a much more nuanced debate about violent imagery and the like of various sorts -- an area where I am in general much more comfortable with firms exercising their editorial prerogatives on what they do or do not wish to host. But intrinsic to considerations of limitations on political speech is the fact that once you start prohibiting one type of political speech (we're not talking direct incitement to violent acts here) you've provided comfort to governments around the world who want to block speech of all sorts for their own ends. Worse, the speech you're most concerned about will continue, just further underground where it will be even harder to monitor. Wanna block encrypted ISIL comms? The only practical way will likely be to try block virtually all VPNs and otherwise not-in-the-clear comms in many areas -- something else tyrants would love to do in many parts of the world. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently doing so. My opinions expressed here are mine alone. _______________________________________________ pfir mailing list http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
