ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Content filter abuse for censorship

2003-05-07 11:26:52
On Wed, 07 May 2003 09:27:49 -0400 
Alan DeKok <aland(_at_)freeradius(_dot_)org> wrote:
J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu> wrote:

So Vernon has exposed the true intent of DCC: It's a shared system of
filtering material which is objectionable to the participants.

That's what ___ALL___ public spam filtering systems are, from RBLs to
blacklists, to razor on down.  Is this a revelation?

That intent is light-years away from spam filtering.  

Hardly.

I do not think that censorship means what you think it does.  Please
check a good dictionary.

I've got a bunch (2 linear feet, to be precise).  It's censorship.

Ahh, another dictionary collector?  I just had to buy another bookcase
to hold mine.

What are you saying here?

That someone should not elect what mail they are willing to receive
or not?

That someone should not state the criteria on which they decide what
mail to receive or not?

That someone should not state the actual decisions they made
regarding mail they receive?

Don't be an idiot.  

<grin>

This isn't about Vernon discarding Hadmut's message, or about Vernon
telling Hadmut that his message was discarded.  It's about Vernon
telling *others* to discard Hadmut's message.
 
Certainly.  That's the fourth question quoted above.  No more, no less.

That someone should not listen to the criteria or decisions another
makes regarding their mail, and then factor that into their own mail
policies in whatever manner they wish?

Hadmut made no statement about the people who use DCC.  

Neither did Vernon.

Your objections are most ingenious: Plausible on the surface, but
subtly missing the point, so as to give a completely distorted view of
Hadmut's behaviour.

<shrug> It seems fairly clear cut from here.  I can stand up, as others
have, and say, "George Bush is an idiot, don't listen to him!".  Perhaps
I do this on a mailing list using a machine processable form that some
people inject directly into their radio tuning systems -- much as Vernon
is said to have done with DCC.  

Where's the difference?

Some religious orders dictate whom their members may and may not consort
with, what media channels they may receive, etc.  Some members (and
others) of those orders follows those dictates, others variously stray.

What's the difference?

We may not like the choices people make, but they remain their choices,
not ours.

There are slippery free speech issues in here.

Not in my country.

Precisely.  I'm not about to dictate American Free Speech models on
Canada or the rest of the planet, or Canadian jurisprudence for that
matter.

<<Actually there free speech issued in Canada as well, but that's a far
different topic>>

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu               He lived as a devil, eh?           
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg