From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 07:42:27 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
In-Reply-To: <01BC0B28.3F64CFA0@king1-28.cnw.com>
Message-ID: <yg851D46w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:
(a bunch of sensible stuff)
> .  Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po
> litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than
> with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all
> their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there
> and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for
> instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough.

Also many "un-freer" societies restrict the ability to emigrate, and many
"freer" society restrict the ability to immigrate. It's not so
easy for someone living in Communist China to pick up his ass and go
someplace else, like Taiwan. A large number of people got shot while
trying to cross the Berlin Wall. Plus if they do get out, they may
have difficulty going to countries like U.S. or Canada. (In case anyone
missed it, the U.S. is much more selective about who it lets in as
immigrants than it was earlier in the century.)

> It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of
> "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts
> of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with
> these, and they still vote problems upon themselves.   But it is becoming
> an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what
> Singaporians want for the internet".    This phrase would describe many of
> those who live in Singapore, but not all of them.   It is more accurate to
> speak of what  "individuals who use the internet" want, of what
>  "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what  "individuals who want
> to connect with others" want.
>
> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the
> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as
> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not
> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant.   When a distress call goes
> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come
> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance.
>
> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens
> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or
> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech".   It is "those of
> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those
> who would take it away".

However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should
not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians
in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did.

---

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