Re: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list

[James Touton <jim.touton@netzero.net>]

David and all Assembly members,

  David, your point is of course quite correct, E-Mail is very different.
Roberto either doesn't understand that of is concerned about the
archival history of the DNSO and his role in it.  If I were him I would
be as well.  Thank god I am not.  Willingness to participate in fraud
is a serious offense and will not be easily forgotten.

david@aminal.com wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >
> > Wanna make a test? Pick the public debate of your choice in the
> > democratic country of your choice (in a city hall, on Capitol Hill, in a
> >  tribunal, wherever), drop by and start insulting people at random, best
> >  if women and with explicit language. Then, try to convince the
> > attendees that they should close their ears rather than try to censor
> > you limiting your freedom of speech.
> >
> > Let us know how it ended.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
> No need to do this test, these types of events occur in local politics
> in my area with disturbing regularity. Recently, a city council meeting
> erupted in a 'demonstration' of support for a local politician that included
> considerable profanity and other types of derision. It was really an attempt at intimidation, but it didn't work.
>
> But that's not the point.
>
> The point is that it is hard to communicate over the noise of a disrupter in a
> physical meeting, the noise is an actual, physical barrier to communications.
> This is why in extreme circumstances someone can be compelled to shut up.
>
> Communication via email is DIFFERENT. Profoundly different. A disruptive email
> does not create a physical barrier to other communications, it is trivially
> easy to physically ignore an email. You can communicate just as if it didn't
> exist at all.
>
> The only thing left, then, is someones emotional reaction to a post that they
> read either accidentally, or because they have a compulsion to read every
> message that ends up in their email box.
>
> Neither of these things clears the hurdles necessary to justify silencing
> someone in what should be a public forum. If you are concerned and embarrased
> by the possibility of your good name being trashed and abused, use a
> pseudonym. There is a long and noble tradition of that technique being used to
> protect oneself in public discourse.
>
> To many people, including myself, this difference is so obvious that it is
> difficult to believe that everyone wouldn't *celebrate* this opportunity
> to let those with even the most extreme views and grating ways of expressing
> themselves have their opportunity to speak their piece.
>
> I find it astounding.
>
> David Schutt

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)



__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html