[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

> >But should the reaction be to gag the speaker or to individually block 
> our
> >ears.
> >
> >I chose the latter approach.
> You have freedom of choice, and can choose for yourself the approach you
>  wish, but cannot assume that everybody will make the same choice.
> Moreover, you cannot *impose* on everybody to choose your approach.

Huh?  The so-called "rules" that have been suggested do exactly that -
they *impose* on everybody, they *impose* the same approach on everybody,
they remove the flexibility of people make their own judgements.

The self-filter approach permits groups to form who are willing to pass
the e-mail through filters established by some group selected overseer.

In other words, with self-filtering we can get what you want - the ability
of some part of the GA to have a censor, and I can get what I want, full
ability of everyone to get on the pulpit and give us the benefit of their
mightly thoughts or make a fool of themselves.

All it takes is that the one and only "ga" list be utterly uncensored and
that we allow the list to contain pointers to remailers from which some of
our members may wish to receive from in lieu of receiving directly from
the prime list, and which have filters imposed by some group-appointed

Its like in the IETF case - there's the main list (largely, but not
completely uncensored), and then there is Harald's "censored" IETF list.

The problem we have is because there is this artificial notion that in
order to be a GA member and have the right to post, one must have ones
name in the /etc/aliases file that defines who receives GA mail.

If we tweek that a bit and say that membership in the GA consists of those
who can post to the GA list, then it doesn't matter (for measuring
"membership") whether people receive the e-mail via the direct uncensored
feed or by a censored subsidiary exploder.

I won't even try to address the assertion that censorship is justified
because a person might think that someone is saying something ugly, even
if that person neither hears what is said nor necessarily even knows that
it is being said.  That kind of logic leads mindless, thoughless silence.

> 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)...

I think David Schutt answered you pretty well on this.

And I also live in a city that has a noisy population - Here in Santa Cruz
we have our collection of screaming fruitcakes who constantly put this
kind of thing to the test.  But eventually they go away, even our very own
self-named BathRobesPierre.

Sure, there are forums in which there *are* prior restraints - courtrooms,
legislative chambers, etc.  But in a "General Assembly", and one should
clearly note the word "general" that is the singular group under ICANN
that is open to public with any, albeit minimal, policy role (nominating a
panel for the NC to use for board seats), there's personal sensitivities
to ugly language ought not be used to justify a censor, particularly when
there is a completely usable alternative.