Re: HateWatch Press Release: Activism vs Hacktivism

[Parsifal <noosph@noosph.org>]

[: hacktivism :]

I think there is here something important which would need a greater 
debate.

The whole point is to know whether or not activists and hacktivists 
believed in, and fight for, freedom of speech.

If there must be a freedom of speech on the Internet, everybody must have 
the right to publish his/her ideas, and promote his/her cause, WHATEVER 
IT MAY BE.

If I can see hate sites, nazis sites, pedophiles sites, i'll say myself : 
"ok, these sites are the VERY proof i am surfing on a free space where 
anybody, included myself, can express oneself.

On the contrary, if i see only "good and clean" sites, i would just 
conclude i am surfing on a dictatorship.

I don't think one can seriously call oneself "activist", and, in the same 
time, practise the same censorship as dictators.

The point is not to determine which sites, due to their content, like 
hate sites, are allowed to be hacked.

As soon as you hack one site, you are in no way better than NSA, FBI, or 
countries like Australia : you act like them. Means determine aims.

To answer to schzoid :

> 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 -

I think that these visitors don't care about any "alternative message".
It is not the hate sites which make them to hate gays, but they connect 
to these sites BECAUSE they hate gays.
You won't change their minds by redirect them to another site.

Moreover, what does allow you to divert the attention of their visitors ? 
It is not your business. You are not God.

>I don't think there can be a
>blanket cover stating that disprupting hate sites be
>constituted as "limiting someone's speech"

I think so. Or do you mean that freedom of speech is limited to 
"politically correct" sites ?
This opinion is very dangerous....


To answer to noreastah :

>To be honest, I don't feel a bit sorry for the poor KKK! They are an
>organization that has a history of "limiting people's life" and we are
>worried about "limiting their speech"?!? Yes, I suppose that there are
>other ways that this could have been handled. But, I won't be shedding any
>tears for those assholes. 

The point is not to be sorry or not for the poor KKK.
But as soon as you hack a site, you hurt and endanger your OWN freedom of 
speech.
Do you understand this ?

The whole campaign against pedophiles sites was just a ruse from 
governments to limit freedom of speech of sites which have nothing to do 
with pedophiles.

As soon as you say "ok" to censor a kind of sites, you'll find ever more 
and more sites which must be gagged, and for each of them, you'll find a 
good pretext, of course, in order to justify your censorship.

Freedom of speech can not be limited. It exists or it doesn't.
If it exists, it is for any cause, anybody.

You can state that freedom of speech is not a right, and it is your right 
to think this.

But please, do not support censorship by your acts while claiming that 
you fight for freedom of speech ....

I am afraid it is the case for many hacktivists.....

An hacktivist willing to be more than a mere hacker, should ask himself, 
seriously, if he wants to fight for or against freedom of speech, and 
conform his acts with his speech.

I do not support hacking, in any way, for any pretext.

According to me, the only serious hacktivism possible deals with 
providing, and releasing info to people.

I am still wondering whether this list is dedicated to hackers or to 
activists .....

We would gain to define precisely what is hacktivism.

Parsifal


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