Re: Freedom of Speech (was Re: HateWatch Press Release)

[Parsifal <noosph@noosph.org>]

[: hacktivism :]

You wrote on 6/09/99 2:43 from schizoid schizoid@pacific.net.sg

>The way that I see it is that a hack on a site can be compared
>to talking/shouting directly at another person -

No, it is an aggresion, and not especially a brave one , because it is 
even not possible to retaliate by hacking the hacker's site. Moreover, 
anybody has not the required knowledge to hack a site. So, hackers form a 
kind of technological elite, and act like any other elite (political, 
economical, etc....).
You cannot pretend to talk directly at someone if he is not able to 
answer you using the same means.
Your talking is unilateral.

>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.  

It is not what i advocate. I don't care to disagree : i prefer to use 
inventive means to promote my own causes, and spread them.
Don't you understand that when you fight against something, you promote 
it ?

For example, i had no knowledge of the existence of the godhatesfags 
site...until some hackers promote it brilliantly.



> But is
>that so?  Is this emphasis on "freedom of speech" purely an academic
>exercise?

Is the US constitution first amendment purely an academic statement ?

>  Are there degrees of freedom of speech?  

If there must be degrees, who define them ? You ? Me ? Governments ?

>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/ :]
>

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