The Boys From Brazil - thoughts on cloning Nazi servers (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:49:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: The Boys From Brazil - thoughts on cloning Nazi servers
> 
> There's a fine line between defending someones freedom of speech, and 
> actively promoting that speech. The reason these mirrors have been set up 
> is to counter the restriction on access to the original site that has 
> been put in place by Deutche Telecom; however, in addition to defeating 
> this restriction, this approach also makes the material more widely 
> available than it was previously, which could be seen as crossing the 
> line between defence of free speech, and active promotion. 
> 

I would counter and say that there is no distinction between free speech and
promoting said speech. How does one say one party has the right to make a
statement and a second party does not have the right to agree? The whole
point of freedom of speech is to prevent limitations on distribution of
information (aka speech, writting, source code, executables, video, audio
tapes, etc.). Even use of these materials (ie running a virus) would not
violate either the spirit or the letter of the law unless it harmed another
person or somehow took advantage of their property (physical or
intellectual) without their prior consent. 


                                             Jim Choate
                                             CyberTects
                                             ravage@ssz.com

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> I would counter and say that there is no distinction between free speech and
> promoting said speech. How does one say one party has the right to make a
> statement and a second party does not have the right to agree? The whole
> point of freedom of speech is to prevent limitations on distribution of
> information (aka speech, writting, source code, executables, video, audio
> tapes, etc.). Even use of these materials (ie running a virus) would not

I think you missed my point (run on sentences do that :).

To give one of the standard illustrations; I've written a short story, and
the evil mind-control freaks at Analog and IASFM refuse to publish it with
the flimsy excuse of it being crap and written in crayon.  You are not
required to send me millions of dollars so I can publish it myself. 
Howevr, if I did raise the millions of dollars, and TPTB tried to stop me
from publishing, there would be an obligation to fight that censorship by
permitting me to publish. 

Freedom of speech means that it other peoples speech shouldn't be 
censored; however there is no obligation for anyone to fund or lend other 
support towards that speech.  This situation is somewhat complicated in 
that in order to fight the censorship, the mirror sites must 
're-publish' the material; however as a side effect they are also 
publishing the material in a  prominent way to people whose access has 
not been censored.

Simon Spero wrote:
> Freedom of speech means that it other peoples speech shouldn't be 
> censored; however there is no obligation for anyone to fund or lend other 
> support towards that speech.  This situation is somewhat complicated in 
> that in order to fight the censorship, the mirror sites must 
> 're-publish' the material; however as a side effect they are also 
> publishing the material in a  prominent way to people whose access has 
> not been censored.
> 

Is voluntarily offering support funding or lending? I never thought so.
I'm also unsure that web pages can be considered publishing in this partic-
ular sense. Certainly files put up on anonymous ftp cannot be considered to
be publishing. I would also dispute your use of the term 'prominent'. How
does making them available make them any more prominent than they were 
to begin with?

Censorship doesn't work. It doesn't stop people from believing in a point
of view. In fact, it only strengthens that point by making them martyrs.
The only combat to offensive thoughts or speech is more speech. When you
show their viewpoints to be a fallacy, they will slink away.

Censorship is a dull, poisoned, double-edged blade. It doesn't cut cleanly,
and the wound that it creates festers and makes the entire body sick. It's
also a blade that cuts both ways. If you're not careful, you might get cut
yourself. 


Oh, and BTW, before anybody asks: Yes, I am the sysadmin at the site where
Joe Bunkley (We call him Racist Boy) has his web site. I personally despise
his views, and might cheerfully cause him pain, given the opportunity. 

But I won't...because he has just as much right to believe the way he does
as any of the rest of us do. Of course, the decision ultimately rests in the
hands of those who have far more power than I do.

Tom

-- 
 Tom Gillman, Unix/AIX Systems Weenie  |"Personally, I have always found the
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. |First Amendment to be a little irksome
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu |and a nuisance" Patrick A. Townson,
 I'm not allowed to have an opinion.   |moderator, comp.dcom.telecom
                                    
  key to UNIX: echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq'|dc