We are becoming politically correct sheep

I am slightly dubious of the wisdom of Tim's switch-and-bate on
a.b.p.e.c. for a couple of reasons:
 
a) The possibility of some media nitwit hearing about the initial
post and missing Tim's "retraction" (or ignoring it in the interests
of a great big ol' byline).  Nightmarish possibilities abound,
particularly given the subtle nature of the "clue" in the PGP block.
 
b) In a more paranoid moment some months ago, I predicted that the
NSA would be waiting for a chance to work a PGP angle into some
sensational story that creates a lot of public outcry.  Linking PGP
to terrorism, drug dealing, or kiddie porn would be a great first
step towards getting some laws against "unlicensed cryptography" on
the books.  I'm less worried about Tim giving the TLAs any ideas (I'm
sure they have lots of bright "media relations" people already) than
I am about him inspiring real pornographers (or agent provocateurs).
 
c) Personally, I think that the fewer excuses one gives busybodies to
"make policy", the better.  However, what with Clipper, Markey, Gore,
Denning, Sternlight, et al, the cat's already out of the bag.  We can
only sigh and wish that these beknighted ones had viewed with alarm
the excess profits and price gouging of the haircutting industry, and
the need to balance unbridled free enterprise with the tonsorial
rights of the public.
 
  However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the
risks noted above.
 
  In response to Tim's later post about freedom of speech, J. Eric
Townsend writes:
>[flameage censored]
 
  In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, 
capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point,
which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
 
Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
 
             to
 
Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them
uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.
 
  This is an obviously not a happy thing.  While not offending others
is an admirable goal, I am going to disagree with Tim May if he
claims that he can levitate given the right mix of ginseng, pig
knuckles, and spiritual harmony.  Tim may be emotionally crushed by
this, but that's life.  If things keep on the way they are, in a few
years, Tim will have the option of taking me to the Spiritual
Tribunal and having me busted for emotional assault, where I'll be
sentenced to three to five years at hard consciousness-raising.
 
  There's an excellent article on this issue by Jonathan Rauch in the
April 93 issue of 'Reason'; this is an excerpt from his book "Kindly
Inquisitors: The New Attack On Free Thought".  Rauch's thesis is that
the very humanitarian goal of making sure that nobody's feelings are
hurt is incompatible with the free inquiry and lively discourse that
are necessary parts of a free society.
 
  To those of you who think "it can't happen here", I would refer you
to Canada's "hate speech" laws, which make it a criminal offense to
"promote hatred against an identifiable group".  To date, the only
well-known charges under these laws have been against couple of
Holocaust revisionists; however, the definitions of "promoting
hatred" and "identifiable group" are vague enough to make this
country a somewhat dangerous place to have unpopular views, even
disregarding the tremendous leverage this law gives governments to
step on anyone who gets too far out of line.
 
  "It's the First Amendment, stupid."
 
  -- Steve

Steve Neal makes some very good points:

> a) The possibility of some media nitwit hearing about the initial
> post and missing Tim's "retraction" (or ignoring it in the interests
> of a great big ol' byline).  Nightmarish possibilities abound,
> particularly given the subtle nature of the "clue" in the PGP block.

I agree, which is why I ended the charade. (And I would've ended it
sooner had I gotten any strange phone calls, suggesting a reporter
sniffing around, or threats to report the posting to the cops. I did
get a few strange messages suggesting Netcom should yank my account.)

But the interesting thing is how paranoid people are about free speech
being exercised (the free speech being posting of non-provably illegal
material, not the posting of provably illegal material). I won't
repeat my point about a nation of politically correct sheep.

>   However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the
> risks noted above.

Yes, perhaps thinking about some issues in advance is a good "drill."

(For some reason, I seem to gravitate toward these "early warning"
situations...it was me who posted the first message about Dorothy
Denning's key escrow system, last October ("A Trial Balloon to Ban
Encryption?"), and I also posted the fake "Stealth Secrets" article in
cypherpunks, anonymously. The intent was to test the commitment of the
list to the much-talked about "whistleblowers" group and to the likey
implications. (Sure enough, several people freaked out and called for
censorship--as if anonymous whistleblowing can be censored! I
'fessed-up after several days, pointing out the material came from a
published book and some Aviation Leak material.)

Steve then makes some really excellent points:

>   In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, 
> capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point,
> which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
>  
> Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
>  
>              to
>  
> Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them
> uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.

Yes, exactly! This is a profound shift from the principles on which
this country (apologies to Brits, etc.) was founded. 


>   To those of you who think "it can't happen here", I would refer you
> to Canada's "hate speech" laws, which make it a criminal offense to
> "promote hatred against an identifiable group".  To date, the only

And France and Germany have both used "hate crimes" as "hate groups"
as justification to ban certain groups from existing.

> well-known charges under these laws have been against couple of
> Holocaust revisionists; however, the definitions of "promoting
> hatred" and "identifiable group" are vague enough to make this
> country a somewhat dangerous place to have unpopular views, even
> disregarding the tremendous leverage this law gives governments to
> step on anyone who gets too far out of line.

Good points, but the so-called "Holocaust" never actually happened,
hence there cannot be any such thing as "Holocaust revisionism," just
the telling of the truth. While the Nazis were not perfect, this
nonsense about extermination camps was just Allied propaganda
(confirmed by documents declassified in 1967) designed to embarass the
Nazi "Huns" and to hide the mass exodus of Jews, who stole the wealth
of Germany and took it to New York to set up brokerage and banking
firms like S.G.  Warburg and the Rothschild Bank. Every true
researcher knows this.


(This little joke could be enough in Canada, as Steve points out, to
at least threaten me, and perhaps the machine this message originates
to the List from. Most likely not (the Canadians concentrated on
long-time activists), but the _threat_ is there. And this
threat is coming down to the U.S.)

Understand that the real threat to the Jews in Germany was not so much
hatred of the Jews (of which there was probably less in Germany than
in France and other European countried until Hitler began stirring up
hatred and staging events to trigger mass hatred) as it was the
unbridled power of the Nazi state. Civil rights were suspended, the
courts fell under the control of Hitler's people, and "law" became
whatever the government wanted. Ironically, with "hate crimes" as a
prosecutorial tool in the 1930s, Hitler could have used the laws to
prosecute Jews (especially Orthodox Jews, with different fashion
styles and a dislike ("hate"?) for many Gentiles. 

The real threat is the government, whatever its initial intent. They
have the guns, they have the courts, they have the power. 

We've sunk into a strange situation in which various special interest
groups jockey for special privilege, special powers granted to them
by the State.

"Live and let live" doesn't mean one has to _like_ all the various
individuals or groups that are out there, it just means you let them
do their thing as long as they don't interfere with your own life.

You can't pass laws to force others to like you, or your group, or to
make their thougths conform to yours. About all you can really do is make
sure they can't rob and kill, and even that's iffy.


--Tim May



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

Summarizing the important bits from Timothy's Post ...


> 
> But the interesting thing is how paranoid people are about free speech
> being exercised (the free speech being posting of non-provably illegal
> material, not the posting of provably illegal material). I won't
> repeat my point about a nation of politically correct sheep.
> 
> >   However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the
> > risks noted above.
> 
> Yes, perhaps thinking about some issues in advance is a good "drill."
> 

.... and ....

> 
> Steve then makes some really excellent points:
> 
> >   In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, 
> > capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point,
> > which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
> >  
> > Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
> >  
> >              to
> >  
> > Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them
> > uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.
> 
> Yes, exactly! This is a profound shift from the principles on which
> this country (apologies to Brits, etc.) was founded. 
>  

.... plus more ...

> 
> The real threat is the government, whatever its initial intent. They
> have the guns, they have the courts, they have the power. 
> 
> We've sunk into a strange situation in which various special interest
> groups jockey for special privilege, special powers granted to them
> by the State.
> 
> "Live and let live" doesn't mean one has to _like_ all the various
> individuals or groups that are out there, it just means you let them
> do their thing as long as they don't interfere with your own life.
> 
> You can't pass laws to force others to like you, or your group, or to
> make their thougths conform to yours. About all you can really do is make
> sure they can't rob and kill, and even that's iffy.
> 
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ..........................................................................
> Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
> tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> 408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
> W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
> Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
> Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
> 

Okay. I agree with most of the post above. I also thought that Tim's "child-
porn" exercise was both useful and amusing. These two stories below are
some more examples of political correctness gone wrong.

The first concerns David Irving, well-known right-wing revisionist "historian". 
Mr. Irving wanted to do a lecture tour in my country of residence, Australia. The
government banned his entry, on grounds of racial hatred and the like. This
decision has immediately criticized my a sizeable majority of the newspapers,
with the prevalent view being "He's got appaling viewpoint, but he should be
permitted to be heard." I am not certain whether the decision has been reversed
or not. I'll have to get back on the subject. Personally, I agreed with the
newspapers on that subject (but of course not on others....)

The second story is more amusing. I don't know how many people on the list have
seen the movie "Romper Stomper", or even if it has been released in America (from
which most of the list resides). For those who don't know, Romper Stomper
concerns a gang of Nazi skinheads who live in Melbourne. Most of them are unedu-
cated scum, although their leader, Hando, although twisted, is quite intellegent
and charismatic. The film concerns the decline of the group, both through the
action of some Vietnamese immigrants (who fight back for a change), and the
police. The film, like the skinheads, are quite violent.

The film (from what I could gather) portrayed the skinheads in an unflattering light.
None of the cast or crew advocated Nazi ideology, and especially not Russell
Crowe, who played Hando. This didn't stop the British Anti-Nazi League from
picketing the film when it was shown in England. They seemed to have gathered
that it was a very naughty film indeed, although how they got their selective
myopia I don't understand. Fortunately, the picket was a failure. Most of
the Australian expatriates told their friends to see it, and they told their 
friends, und so weiter.

Okay, political correctness is a dangerous thing. Note that I didn't say bad,
just dangerous. I do agree that racism, sexism and homophobia are bad things,
so I do sympathize with most p.c. objectives. But mostly I have not found any strong
evidence for legislative strategies to enforce these objectives (with one
exception ... see below). 

Fortunately their are ways to defuse this dilemma without legal wrangling. 
Firstly, a lot of terms (although not all) which started out as a symbol of
demonizing have turned out to be words of pride. Examples are Nigga (as Niggas
with Attitute) and Dyke (as in Dykes on Bikes, which are always prominent in the
Sydney Gay Pride Festival, among other places, and whoops, I forgot to mention
"Gay"). This is of course imperfect ... I don't think the word "Faggot" is used
very positively, and as for such words like "Slag" (slang for women), the less
said the better. Of course, as a white male heterosexual (or Breeder, whatever
you prefer), I don't encounter much discrimination, so I am not as knowledgeble (sic)
as some people. Still, when people can use _some_ of these words in a humerous
fashion (as opposed to offensive), things look brighter.

The second point is immediately related to the last point - humour. If you are
not going to ban the bastards from speaking you can at least make fun of them.
After all, it is part of YOUR right to speak. As an example, in Australia some
judges have been under fire for making stupid comments at rape trial. Some people
have called for their dismissal (which is a bit extreme). However, a lot of
comics have been satirizing their judgements, and the jokes have even occured
on two comedy shows: "The Late Show" and "Full Frontal". (After all, can you
say the phrase "No means Yes" with a straight face anymore ..?)

For the third point, I admit that it does fall into the category of legal wrangling. 
It is this - remove all legislation that limits the powers of a minority. Fortunately,
most of this work has already been done in most Western countries. Still,
examples do exist. Queensland (my state) decriminalized homosexual behavior
among consenting adults only three years ago, and legislation still exists
in Tasmania (although it is "not enforced"). Also, until recently, several cantons
in Switzerland didn't give women the right to vote in local elections. I leave
you to think of local example. (Note - maternity leave for women is NOT an example
of limiting the power of a minority.) 

(Aside, I think the talk of the change of focus
to "forbidding speech that hurts others" is exaggerated, or at least in
Australia. (Obviously most of you know more about America than I do). My impression
was that some of the local focus is on "giving more freedom to consenting
adult, as doing otherwise encourages police corruption. Our state is currently
going though a review of it's Marijuana legislation, and the stuff is already
decriminalized in South Australia. Also, we've got more liberal censorship
laws than America.) 

The final point. Obviously removing stupid discriminatary action (calling
people by rude names, etc.,) is a laudible aim. This can (of course) occur in
different ways. For example, some poor soul might fall foul of the p.c. brigade,
not though nastiness, but through naivete (like using the term "chairman"). I
was once called a hypocrite because I believed both in capitalism and small-l
liberalism (by a socialist, no less). What's the big weapon for change? Well, it's 
powerful, but sometimes quite undependable. It's called time. Believe me, you need 
a lot of it to affect social change; revolutionary change leads almost always to
tyranny. Still, a lot has happened in the last 30 years. It was only in 1966
that Australian Aborigines were given full citizenship, and currently we are
in the middle of the aftereffects from the Mabo land claim decision. In a lot
of ways, the world has got worst as well as better. Still, when the conservative
elders die, you can only hope that their children have kept the good things,
and rejected the bad things, of their parents. 

I'll have to end it there. I want to have lunch. Whoops, this is going to a 
list primarily concerning encryption! What will I say? Got it ... "Stop the
Clipper chip!" I hope it will keep em' happy ... Cheers for now.

Peter.

-- 
=============================================================================
Peter Murphy - Department of Electrical Engineering,|Phone: 61 - 7 - 300 3452.
University of Queensland: murphy@s2.elec.uq.oz.au  .|------------------------
"Contrary to popular belief, the wings of demons are|Please do not put any 
the same as the wings of angels, although they're   |Heinlein quotes in your 
often better groomed." - Terry Pratchett.           |.sig - they're old.
=============================================================================