From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:12:01 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
Message-ID: <199701230212.SAA03079@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:16:00 -0800
> From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
> 
> Jim Choate wrote:
> > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to
> > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run
> > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any
> > particular view on them.
> 
>   And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country.

And your point is? Are you equating a specific individual or organization
with Hitler or the National Socialist?

>   Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run
> our

No, and I have a vote to express that sentiment with and a 'press' (ssz.com)
by which I may express my views irrelevant of how that vote may resolve
itself. If the people in those counties want to give away their freedom that
is their business (and right), not mine, yours, or this countries unless
there is evidence they are trying to take their views and impose them here.

Do you have said evidence? In reference to Hitler, had he stayed in his own 
country WWII and the ensuing half century of conflict would most likely not
have occured.

I say, let them filter themselves into economic collapse, intellectual
nihilism, and political suicide. Suicide, assissted or otherwise, is a right
any and all individuals have whether acting as individuals or as groups.
Remember Masada!

Never forget, a tree can exist without a forest but a forest can not exist
without trees. It is a one way street however much some people may want to
convince us otherwise.

>   It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is 
> 'their' world ('their' being the people).

A goverment is people. This reminds me of the argument of the sanctity of
law that so many people have. It is only ink on paper that people agree to
go along with until they get their fill. Consider, history is full of
examples of this process and with California and Massachusettes move on
legalizing medical marijuana we may be seeing the first move of a return to
states being much more adament on what they can and can't do (per the 9th and
10th).

> There was a reason that the 
> Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their
> country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom.
>   Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone.

If those people agree to support a system that limits or controls what
information they get to see that is their choice. It didn't work in Russia
and it won't work in Singapore or China any better. If the US were to
continue to press forward on oppressive legislation and the people don't do
anything actively to fight it the same thing will happen here, economic
collapse which forces a political collapse. However, we won't get there
because the more the government employees and officials 'crack down' the
more resistance they will get. You can fool most of the people some of the
time, some of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people
all the time.

The key to democratic success is not compromise but rather the unwillingness
to compromise.

> > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share
> > data in a easily digestible format. 
> 
>   No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the
> communications
> of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the
> government
> to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information.

The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. The original goal
of the Internet was to allow computers to be connected in a nuclear conflict
and the period afterward when communications would be most critical. How
people may have bastardized it since then does not change the original
reasons (unless you accept revisionist history as a valid endeavour, I don't).

One of the biggest problems this country has right now is the inability of
people like yourself to differentiate the difference between the ideals of
the country and the people who impliment it. The problem is not the
government or the ideals it was founded on but rather the way we impliment
it. Our government is people, who put their pants on the same way you or I
do (assuming you wear pants that is). They are not inherently some mineon of
Hell, they are people who in general either don't give a damn and it's just
a job or else they really believe what they are doing. Our government is NOT
some ideal or non-real entity, despite how many citizens may rail about it in 
that manner. It just don't make it so.

Accept and deal with your schizophrenic tendencies and help solve this
national problem we face. Let's try to solve it now so that our
grandchildren won't have to fight this fight again.


                                                      Jim Choate
                                                      CyberTects
                                                      ravage@ssz.com