20 Aug 2005 10:40:52
ellis_jay
ping Ron..Freedom Knights

For Ron:

http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet/freedom.html

Excerpts from above:

Cabal - Those net citizens who by their own consensus reality, set
themselves apart from and superior to usenet users and use
this illusory superiority to restrict or censor any usenet
user's attempts at communication through usenet.

Control - Regulation of activity and content. Also, that which should only
be applied to oneself. The need to control others is a
dishonorable symptom of the failed need to control oneself.

Subject: 4. Basic Philosophies

4.1) Declaration of Free Speech

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Humans are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Unhindered Communications, Unregulated
Exchange of Ideas, and Freedom of Speech, that to secure these rights
the Usenet is instituted on networks of the world, that when any
administration of Usenet becomes destructive to these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institue new
administration, laying its foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Free Communication.

[With much thanks to the Declaration of Independence]

4.2) What is True Free Speech?

True Free Speech is that speech which is hindered by nothing other
than the speaking individual's own Ethics.

Where True Free Speech exists, no external party may restrict someone
else's speech, for any reason, period.

Speech, in the above definition, does *not* restrict another's speech.
It can't. It takes a person to *act* on that speech to restrict
another's speech. That person, then, would be the responsible party.
A news admin setting up a news server to act is one way to create the
illusion of speech-restrictive speech.

The litmus test for True Free Speech is speech that makes you -want-
to silence another person. If that speech is not silencable by you
(whether you want to or not), you have a state of True Free Speech.

4.3) What is net abuse?

Any action that stops a properly configured transport system from
performing its normal store and forward services.

Examples of net abuse:
-Posting articles that directly crash the news server that
is to inject the post into the news stream.
-Posting articles that contain control messages designed to
crash news servers.
-Directly hacking into a news server to disable it.

Examples of things that are NOT net abuse:
-Volumnous posting
-SPAM
-Excessive crossposting
-Off topic posting
-Flaming or arguing

4.5) What is filtering?

Filtering is the act of taking responsibility for what you read by
configuring your newsreader to present only what you want to see.
This is a special and expected case of Censorship above, simply
extended to include -you- as the remover of ability from others
to communicate to yourself. This is the -only- acceptable form
of censorship, IMO.

- If you argue for free speech, people aren't going to take you seriously.

This is an emotional hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to
play on your need to be taken seriously to coerce you into doing
things their way...or they won't take you seriously.

There are others who won't take you seriously if you cave into these
coercions. Still, others won't take you seriously at all. If we become
affected by everyone's impressions of us, we will certainly be candidates
for an insane asylum. (Maybe we already are...)

I would think that you don't really need to be taken seriously by
anybody who would attempt to coerce you in this way.

5.5) The bludgeon of ownership

Citing ownership of the press does not justify any attempt to censor
based on that ownership. In fact, using ownership as a "bludgeon"
to stamp out views that are disagreed with is still Censorship,
even though it may be justified by the definition of ownership.

- Free speech means the ability to say what you want. It does
not guarantee you _where_ you want to say it and _how_ you
want to say it.

This is a definitions strawman. Simply put, this definition of
free speech is not useful, and hardly free.

If you can't say something where and how you want to say it, is your
speech truly free? It cannot be, since someone who can control where
and how you speak can interfere with your ability to communicate, thus
restricting your freedom.

To put this another way: would you like some arbitrary person telling
you where and how you can say certain things? I can see it now:

"Sure you have free speech, at 3AM on channel 145 for 2.5 minutes."

Anyone using this argument has no understanding or desire for
freedom of speech, by the very fact that they use this argument.

- USENET operates on certain principles. Create your own net if you
don't like the way it runs.

This is a political hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to
convince you that everyone else likes things the way they are, and
that everyone else is in control of USENET.

If you are running a site, this is patently false. USENET is a collective
anarchy, where site admins have authority over their part of the collective.
You have absolute control over your site to run it any way you want
to, which unfortuantely includes the ability to commit acts of Censorship.

If you aren't running a site, don't waste your breath arguing with
these people. Find a Site of Virtue to post from, and support Sites of
Virtue. That way, we -will- create our own net.

-But this is Usenet, a place where speaking is a privilege, not a right.

That all depends on your site admin. If you are at a Site of Virtue,
speaking is a right.

- It's wrong to force me to read your trash.

Given that people have to manually select articles from a menu, it's
hard to imagine someone forcing their fingers to press certain keys in
a certain order, so that people are forced to read anything.

Indeed, the entire concept of force becomes ludicrous when one recognizes
that one can simply close one's eyes and not read anything presented to
them.

This does bring up a point, however. There -is- a place for
censorship. Your personal newsreaders. See the section on filtering
above.

- But who gave you free speech rights on my computer?

YOU did when you loaded the news transport software. According to RFC1036,
making a news server and getting a feed allows the transport of messages
between your news server and another.

If you do -not- specifically filter messages, any messages are
allowed by implication.

Turn off your daemon if you don't want that. Filter incoming articles
if you are still finicky about what you are going to accept (and if
you do you are not a Site of Virtue). But you may not usefully demand
that someone else stop posting because it's "your" disk if you open
your port to a full feed of Usenet.

- Usenet is free. Internet service isn't.

Oh come on. This is confusing 'free=not under control of some
arbitrary power' and 'free=without cost or payment; gratis'.

You shouldn't be paying for censored news. If you are, you are
probably wasting your money.

"end of excerpts"

Works for me, Ron. Let me buy ya a beer!



--

Their ethics are a short summary of police ordinances: for them the most
important thing is to be a useful member of the state, and to air their
opinions in the club of an evening; they have never felt the homesickness
for something unknown and far away, nor the depths which consists in being
nothing at all.
___________Soren Kierkegaard

Ellis_jay




20 Aug 2005 17:45:54
Danzig
Re: ping Ron..Freedom Knights

gee and I thought LITMUS was used to test whether something was acid or base
>