(no subject)

Free speech means you can say anything you want, but it doesn't mean you can
force anyone to listen.  If I don't want to hear it, I can forbid you from
coming into my house to tell me about it.  I can configure my software to reject
your messages if I don't want to see them.  If I own a newsserver I can refuse
to propagate your articles through it -- just as, if I owned a newspaper, I
could refuse to print your "letters to the editor."  In short, I can't stop you
from saying whatever you want, but I don't have to listen, nor do I have to help
you spread your message to anyone else.

Matt Beland <[e-mail]> on 01/07/2001 11:07:30 PM

To:   Dan Hollis <[e-mail]>, Gregory Maxwell <[e-mail]>
cc:   "Pedro M. Rodrigues" <[e-mail]>, "John O'Donnell"
      <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (bcc: Wayne
      Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?

On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> > majority. This is not acceptable.
>
> See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
>
> *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property.

Does it now? How interesting. You can prohibit people from saying things you
don't like. Hmmm. I suppose that could be useful. I don't like (just as an
example) any speech from or about people named Dan. Please cease and desist
immediately or I will blackhole you, your server, your domain, and everyone
and everything associated with it until the people rise up and kill everyone
named Dan, or as an acceptable compromise, remove their ability to speak and
or type, or force them to change their names. That's my right, it's my
property. Morally wrong? Bah. Your right to prattle on about morality stops
at my property.

Point 1: Laws mean jack squat in this case. The lawmakers know little about
the internet, and until they learn, the laws they pass will continue to be
irrelevant, confusing, or contradictory. Even when they aren't, no society
has ever managed a foolproof "unjust law filter". The existence of a law does
not make that law good, correct, or even legal; reference prohibition, slave
ownership, women's sufferage or the lack thereof, and roughly 40% of the US
Tax Code referencing income tax.

Point 2: Either "information wants to be free", has no physical existence or
worth, and cannot be controlled, or it has existense, worth, and can be
controlled as property. You can't have it both ways; either Spam is an
undesirable side effect of the free flow of information, or information is
not free and can be controlled.

Isn't it amazing how some of the people who are so quick to yell when
Microsoft or Oracle or the government of <insert nation name here> infringes
on their rights/privacy/information are the first to block the flow of
information in the name of the same?

>
> Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of
> the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story.
>
> -Dan
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/