Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - Weshall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for14 days).

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:39:45PM -0700,
>  Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote 
>  a message of 30 lines which said:
> 
> > I am opposed to any formalized censorship. 
> 
> Suppressing posting rights is not censorship.

I disagree.  I believe that it is.  The reasons will be made more clear 
below.

> Censorship is when a power (the government, a corporation, the mob)

... the managers of the GA list ...

> tries to suppress *any* speech from an individual or an organization.
> When you tell someone to shut up in a meeting (may be because he talks
> too much and off-topic), it is not censorship, when you actively try to
> prevent him from speaking anywhere, it is censorship.

When a person is banned from the one single forum in all of icann-dom that 
is open to the public, then banning him/her is a condemnation to a realm 
of silence.  I don't give much strengh to the argument that the person is 
still free to mutter to himself or herself.

> People in countries with a long history of freedom of speech speak too
> lightly about censorship.

Huh?
 
> > In the kind of warm discussion that arises out of social and political
> > matters (as opposed to the calmer, less emotional discussions that occur
> > in the ietf regarding technical matters)
> 
> Less emotional? I assume that you are actually a member of some IETF
> working groups.

I've been involved in dozens and dozens and dozens of IETF working groups
over the years, I've even chaired some.  Sure, there is sometimes heat and
been an occassional personal comment.  But it is hard to remain emotional
for very long about whether a protocol should use XML attributes or
elements to express something.

But in the discussions we have here, a much more intense sense of outrage
can arise because very fundamental heart-felt issues are involved - such
as whether a person has the ability to have a separate and personal
existance on the internet or must exist only as part of some corporate
entity.

> > Censorship is not foreign to ICANN - ICANN has tried to censor me, for
> > example, by refusing to publish any of my papers on its web site, 
> 
> It is bad policy and it speaks negatively about ICANN but censorship
> is when you cannot even post what you want on your personal home page.

Again, I disagree.  Censorship occurs when a person (or entity) choses to
exclude a speaker from a forum or mode of communication.

That ICANN does it, particularly when done to a Director and when there is 
no suggestion that the content contains any purient or unsavory modes of 
expression, is simply repugnant.

Here in the US, censorship by governmental bodies is largely prohibited by
our highest law.  On the other hand private censorship is permitted and
tolerated, although not liked.  We have had to address boundary questions
such as whether a private shopping mall is a public or private place.

ICANN represents the evolving government of the internet and as such I 
find that it, including this GA list, have the character of a public 
place, and the list managers have the character of governmental actors.  I 
use the word "character" to indicate that these are not hard and firm 
judgements, but rather fuzzy ones.

However, as I said, I see no reason for GA list censorship.  I opposed it
when Herald A. imposed it on the GA list.  On the other hand, I have no
objection to people exercising their right not to listen either through 
the use of filters of through liberal use of the 'd' key.

		--karl--


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html