Freedom of Speech (was Re: HateWatch Press Release)

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

[: hacktivism :]

I'll just response to Parsifal's notion of hacking a site as a limit on the
freedom of speech, which in his view could then led to other ominous
scenarios.  The way that I see it is that a hack on a site can be compared
to talking/shouting directly at another person - you get your say in for a
while, but you are not stopping the other person from speaking (unlike when
law enforcement officers coming in and taking you away and locking you up).
However, Parsifal (and Stuart, in another post) would advocate just standing
in a separate corner and shouting on top of your voice just how you
disagree - that would be a manifestation of freedom of speech, but not the
first instance.  How so?  Don't we all have different ways of speaking?
Surely, "freedom of speech" refers not only to the contents of that speech,
but the means of saying it as well.
If a hack is as devious as, say the (misused) arm of law - in the sense of
police actions or cyber-filters - then, I'll say let's be weary.  But is
that so?  Is this emphasis on "freedom of speech" purely an academic
exercise?  Are there degrees of freedom of speech?  Or is it an absolute
(hence stifling and possibly censorious) measure?

Lawrence


----- Original Message -----
From: Parsifal <noosph@noosph.org>
To: <hacktivism@tao.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: HateWatch Press Release: Activism vs Hacktivism


[: 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.





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