From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 23:45:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: free speach and the government
In-Reply-To: <9602040531.AA20987@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <TH5RiD45w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


(Little crypto relevance, some technology)

jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada)) writes:
>
> I think it is safe to say, especially regarding coverage of the Internet by
> popular medias, that even if there are some journalists that still have integrity
> most of their bosses don't.

They may have integrity; they just adhere to different moral principles.
E.g., if their salaries are paid by the advertisers, they may feel that
they owe their allegiance to the advertisers, not the readers, and that
pleasing the advertisers is more important than telling the (whole) truth.

> >U.S. No one can determine which of the countless bits of information that
> >travel over the Internet every second are false, or harmful, or subversive,
> >or otherwise not worthy of transnmission.
>
> Well,  here I don't completely agree.  *you* can determine what is worth and
> what is not.

I can determine what's not worth reading for me. (I wish I had better technical
means to filter out the incoming traffic that I know is not worth my reading --
freedom of non-association, in addition to freedom of speech and freedom of
association :-). I could share my opinions with others (through a rating system
or by publicly urging everyone to *plonk* someone I don't like, although I find
this in bad taste). I can't determine that an item is so unworthy that it
should be suppressed and that someone else should be deprived of his right
to read it. In my opinion, I can't determine that a certain item of information
is not worth being published/transmitted at all. Someone else is likely to
be interested in the information that I'm not interested in.

> But again, I suppose that if you have rationnal arguments, you will be able
> to convince other rationnal individuals.  I am not in favor of broadcasting
> neo-nazi scum all over because I think that their essence is the same as the
> underlying the censorship movement.  They share the same vision of man, only

Frankly, I've never looked at the stuff the WC is trying to suppress. I know
enough on the subject to be convinced that it's not worth my time and effort.
But if someone wants to publish it, and someone else wishes to read what they
publish, they should be at liberty to do that. I don't think they're the same
as the WC's, who seek to suppress speech.

As for pciking a more popular cause for a test case, yes, I wish there was
something more savory (like PRC or SG dissidents), but "popular speech doesn't
need protection".

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps