Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)

Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah@life.ai.mit.edu>...

> > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think
> > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it?
> 
> 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to
> stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run
> our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any
> particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot,
> let him. Might be purty funny to watch.

I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a
geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power.

The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither 
country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in
obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from
calling itself a democracy.


> > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice 
> > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of
> > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal.
> 
> Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share
> data in a easily digestible format. 

That was not all. We had a political Web site established
during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people
when we had fewer than 100 Web sites.

I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into
the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool
for confirming the present social order which is manifestly 
corrupt.


	Phill

Phill said:
> That was not all. We had a political Web site established
> during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people
> when we had fewer than 100 Web sites.
> 
> I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into
> the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool
> for confirming the present social order which is manifestly 
> corrupt.

     Which of course is why you were in contact with Billy's boys right?

> > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into
> > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool
> > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly 
> > corrupt.
> 
>      Which of course is why you were in contact with Billy's boys right?

We did consider very early on the idea of proceedings of congress
annotated with the campaign contributions of the various speakers.

Imagine if instead of Newt Gingrich you saw Newt Gingrich ($243,493
Tobbacco Industry) as a speaker note.

We were in contact with the Clinton folks because the Bush guys
ignored the Web and the Internet completely. They just were
not interested. Nor were the Perot folks either - odd since the
electronic townhall was a big part of their platform. Even in 
this campaign the Perot page could not be read with Netscape 6 months
before the election.

On the other hand have a look at www.buchanan.org If you thought that
Pat got a bum rap off the press when they called him a neo-Nazi
just take a look at his site. Buchanan Brigade? Look at the
choice of topics for the speaches. 

	Phill