-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 9/22/09 4:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 22 22:02:05 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.
There are a huge number of locations where freedom of speech is
restricted. Arguably, depending on how precisely one defines it, the UK
and much of the EU falls into this category, since many places will
prosecute for "incitement" of various flavours.
I'm generally unfussed by these things, since I'm quite happy to live in
the UK, and don't consider inciting people to violence, terrorism, or
racial hatred a thing I want to do or permit others to do.
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this thread, I'm talking about discussion of
technical topics that impinge on the political realm: things like the
use of encryption to protect personal privacy (especially from the
prying eyes of Isaac and Justin), the Internet as a technology that
routes around censorship as damage, and the simple human right to be
*left alone* by government bureaucrats and other such busybodies if one
is going about one's business in a peaceful manner.
I admit that
incitement to democracy is, at the least, something I'd want to permit
others to do, but probably not in the IETF, where, after all, we reject
Don't tell the NomCom.
Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated,
You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.
influences can be, and are, removed from mailing lists. (I have no clue
if there's an equivalent to PR actions for physical meetings, but I can
imagine that we might make one up if we needed to).
Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never before signed a contract that lets the government of
the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for
So if you're going to take a moral stance, I think you need to be
careful about exactly what morals you're standing on. Or possibly for.
To avoid getting as muddled as me on that front, it seems safer not to
argue on that basis. Or for it.
If you would like to become less morally muddled, I can recommend a full
course of study in ethical philosophy, from Socrates on up. Come to
think of it, look where questioning the authorities got him!
On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some people
have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the PRC impose
may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF typically engages in.
We don't know if they do or if they don't, without studying the laws of
the People's Republic of China.
I suspect that it may not be so, and would hope that this can be
determined, clearly, and in advance of any decision.
Determined by whom, and to whose satisfaction?
However, I would note that I'm still concerned about the possible
effects by and on remote participation. But you'll all have read my
other comments, right?
The XMPP technology that is used to run jabber.ietf.org includes methods
for room moderation, and I suppose that such methods could be invoked.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ietf mailing list