Re: HateWatch Press Release: Activism vs Hacktivism
From
Aimee <vanwagea@bc.edu>
Date
Sun, 5 Sep 1999 18:33:35 -0900 (PDT)
Cc
hacktivism@tao.ca
In-reply-to
<199909051751.NAA01869@tao.ca>
[: hacktivism :]
This is from Parsifal:
> Freedom of speech can not be limited. It exists or it
doesn't.
> If it exists, it is for any cause, anybody.
This, Parsifal, is not the only opinion on this matter.
All freedoms have limitations. There is no pure freedom
of speech. I think you need to be aware that your view
itself "acts like God". You have put forth a principle that is
more important than anything else. "Thou shall not limit
anyone's speech ever for any reason." This is its own
dictatorship (and it is not a dictatorship of the people
because of the way current social relations stand.)
It doesn't make sense (to me) to talk about freedom of
speech as more important than fighting racism (or
imperialism or heterosexism or whatever). Non-whites, the
"third
world" and queer people do not have the same freedoms
including those to speech (witness the paucity of
minorities on television, the lack of third world people
in public discourse, and the cancelling of "Ellen"). In
many cases in the U.S. such people are being singled out for
torture and execution.
If this were not the case, the universal application of
free speech over EVERYTHING else MIGHT make some sense.
But how does it make sense when the power to speak is not
evenly distributed?
Besides, temporary hacking of a site is perhaps akin to a
counterdemonstration on a street that blocks racists or
whatever from getting their message out. You, I assume,
would not want to limit this sort of
counterdemonstration. Can hacking/hactivism not be seen as
free speech, a counterdemonstration?
One more point:
> But as soon as you hack a site, you hurt
and endanger your OWN freedom of > speech.
> Do you understand this ?
>
No, I've never bought this slipperly slope argument. It
doesn't seem to me to be predetermined that if floodnet
(for example) is deemed legal than all hell will break
lose and there will be rampant denials of service and
censorship. Every single "freedom" has limitations in
order for society to function.
> According to me, the only serious hacktivism possible deals with
> providing, and releasing info to people.
>
For me this is way too limited a definition. "Educating"
is only one very slim portion of activism. I think acts
of civil disobedience must be included in the definition
of hactivism (even if everyone who is a hactivist does
not do civil disobedience).
aimee
[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]