From: sneal@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Sneal)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:08:19 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: We are becoming politically correct sheep
Message-ID: <9307070308.AA02565@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I am slightly dubious of the wisdom of Tim's switch-and-bate on
a.b.p.e.c. for a couple of reasons:
 
a) The possibility of some media nitwit hearing about the initial
post and missing Tim's "retraction" (or ignoring it in the interests
of a great big ol' byline).  Nightmarish possibilities abound,
particularly given the subtle nature of the "clue" in the PGP block.
 
b) In a more paranoid moment some months ago, I predicted that the
NSA would be waiting for a chance to work a PGP angle into some
sensational story that creates a lot of public outcry.  Linking PGP
to terrorism, drug dealing, or kiddie porn would be a great first
step towards getting some laws against "unlicensed cryptography" on
the books.  I'm less worried about Tim giving the TLAs any ideas (I'm
sure they have lots of bright "media relations" people already) than
I am about him inspiring real pornographers (or agent provocateurs).
 
c) Personally, I think that the fewer excuses one gives busybodies to
"make policy", the better.  However, what with Clipper, Markey, Gore,
Denning, Sternlight, et al, the cat's already out of the bag.  We can
only sigh and wish that these beknighted ones had viewed with alarm
the excess profits and price gouging of the haircutting industry, and
the need to balance unbridled free enterprise with the tonsorial
rights of the public.
 
  However - tickling a few neurons may very well have been worth the
risks noted above.
 
  In response to Tim's later post about freedom of speech, J. Eric
Townsend writes:
>[flameage censored]
 
  In arguing the fine points of Dworkinism, pornography, 
capitalization of proper nouns, etc., I think Eric misses Tim's point,
which is (I think) that the current movement of society is from
 
Forbidding actions that cause harm to others
 
             to
 
Forbidding actions and speech that might offend others, or make them
uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings.
 
  This is an obviously not a happy thing.  While not offending others
is an admirable goal, I am going to disagree with Tim May if he
claims that he can levitate given the right mix of ginseng, pig
knuckles, and spiritual harmony.  Tim may be emotionally crushed by
this, but that's life.  If things keep on the way they are, in a few
years, Tim will have the option of taking me to the Spiritual
Tribunal and having me busted for emotional assault, where I'll be
sentenced to three to five years at hard consciousness-raising.
 
  There's an excellent article on this issue by Jonathan Rauch in the
April 93 issue of 'Reason'; this is an excerpt from his book "Kindly
Inquisitors: The New Attack On Free Thought".  Rauch's thesis is that
the very humanitarian goal of making sure that nobody's feelings are
hurt is incompatible with the free inquiry and lively discourse that
are necessary parts of a free society.
 
  To those of you who think "it can't happen here", I would refer you
to Canada's "hate speech" laws, which make it a criminal offense to
"promote hatred against an identifiable group".  To date, the only
well-known charges under these laws have been against couple of
Holocaust revisionists; however, the definitions of "promoting
hatred" and "identifiable group" are vague enough to make this
country a somewhat dangerous place to have unpopular views, even
disregarding the tremendous leverage this law gives governments to
step on anyone who gets too far out of line.
 
  "It's the First Amendment, stupid."
 
  -- Steve