Re: HateWatch Press Release: Activism vs Hacktivism

["schizoid" <schizoid@pacific.net.sg>]

[: hacktivism :]

I agree with Parsifal that we do not need censors
of whatever stripe.  And using HateWatch's site
content without their knowledge or agreement is
highly improper.  This will only diminish any
subsequent effectiveness that such a hack may
purported to have.  However, given the nature of
the singular viewpoint of those hate sites, what
other means would there be to divert the attention
of those vistors to an alternative message - seeking
the webmasters' permission to include links to
alternative sites?  It's a competent hack, but bad
politics, perhaps.  The question then is can we have
both, particularly  in instances where reasonable
dialogue, outside of their brand of narrow and
intense prejudice, cannot be imagined to take place
on those hate sites?  I don't think there can be a
blanket cover stating that disprupting hate sites be
constituted as "limiting someone's speech" - a hack
is merely a ruse, tactic for drawing out awareness
and to change perceptions; the capacitiy for speech
is not lost, I'm sure.

Lawrence


----- Original Message -----
From: Parsifal <noosph@noosph.org>
To: <hacktivism@tao.ca>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: HateWatch Press Release: Activism vs Hacktivism


[: hacktivism :]

I totally agree with this message.

To hack a site under the pretext it doesn't match one's ideas about what
is a "good cause" turns hacktivist into the same kind of intolerant
people they are supposed to fight.

We don't need censors, whoever they may be, governments or hacktivists.

Parsifal









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