Re: Ehippies new DoS tools and information

[Hal <pearrow@nvbell.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

Matt (Wyn), Pan, et. al.,

Somehow this question of the protest against some sites, groups, etc.,
has gone completely out of hand.  The proposal to protest has all of a
sudden turned into a "bunch of blood crazed protesters (who) go and
throw stones."  I don't think anyone has suggested such a thing or that
anyone here would actually condone a plan for such activity.

As I've written before, I was a journalist for major daily newspapers
for decades and now independently write for a living.  As such, I have
(had) a very strong invested interest in preserving the right of freedom
of speech.  But to preserve such a right, we must first know what that
right is.  And it is not the all-hallowed right some have come to
consider it to say or print anything regardless of consequences.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

(Quote on)

The Conventions of a number of the state having, at the time of adopting
the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction  or abuse of the powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses be added ...

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech; or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(quote off)

So, you see, the right we are talking about is that Congress, and by
extension any level of government, cannot make laws abridging the
freedom of speech.  Also note that the freedom of press and the right of
peaceful assembly are separate entities, not speech-assembly rights
blended into one as is done below.

Further, although no laws can be made to abridge freedom of speech,
"freedom of speech" can be defined as it has been done extensively in
this country.  Thus we have the "shouting fire in a theater" quote that
was only an example, not a specific ruling itself, when the courts were
defining things that were NOT "freedom of speech."  That right does not
include incitement to riot, placing others in immediate damage or
calling for harm to another's body or rights.  We also have security
clearances, national security agreements, libel and slander laws, and
even civil laws calling for damages if one irresponsibly depletes the
worth of another's reputation or property.  In addition, a private
entity -- including a person -- may restrict others' access to their
property even if it is to exercise "freedom of speech."  Further,
individual companies may set up limitations on employees' right to
speech under penalty of termination or even civil damages.  In fact,
even the sit-ins of the 60s (as a form of "silent" speech) were ILLEGAL
since they took away a business' right to its own property.  Even
governmental agencies may restrict access for that speech.  You cannot
go into a meeting of Congress -- or even into a City Council meeting --
and set up a soap box, interrupting their course of business.

Three things are clear:  Freedom of speech is not license to damage; it
is not an unlimited thing; and, its protection is clearly from the
actions of GOVERNMENT.  It is extended into the private sector when a
collusion of individuals or corporations, or one powerful individual,
act to prevent the actual "speech," but not the ACCESS to a desired
medium.

The idealistic attitude toward freedom of speech is out of touch with
reality.  It leads to problems on both sides of the situation.  It leads
one to attempt to exercise that idealistic approach, thereby running
afoul of those things outside the definition of freedom of speech, and
it also causes one to cow down to those who would wave that banner at
them.

Cracking computers is wrong and illegal, not because it violates freedom
of speech but because it either damages property or takes away a
business' or individual's right to his own property.  However, when that
business or individual sets up an authorized method of doing business,
it is NOT wrong, morally or legally, at present to use that approved
avenue.  And that is exactly what plans such as flooding proposes to
do.  In the case of groups such as the KKK or other militant groups,
they set up a website for the use of others to contact them.  If too
many people do, or do so in a manner that slows the system, that is too
bad.  If we all decided to make telephone calls at the same time by
agreement, it may frustrate and slow the telephone companies, but it
would not be illegal or immoral.

Yes, protests are not done in the "spirit" of cooperation but protests
seldom are.  However, seldom are the things at which protests are aimed
within the "spirit" of mutual cooperation and mutual benefit with the
unofficially disenfranchised individual. 

Nazism does not call for mutual benefit; the etoy situation was an
attempted corporate crushing of a smaller entity; restrictions major
e-commerce wants definitely do not seek to preserve the rights of the
individual.

An attempt to fend them off is not an attempt to take away their freedom
of speech.  It is an attempt to resist their rape of the rights of all
individuals.

Hal




[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]