[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Another rendition of Selected Censorship Proposed to:Re: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list
Roberto and all Assembly members,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Huh? The so-called "rules" that have been suggested do exactly that -
> >they *impose* on everybody, they *impose* the same approach on
> >they remove the flexibility of people make their own judgements.
> Not true at all.
> You do have freedom of choice on whether to subscribe to the integral or
> abridged version.
> If you want to apply your own filter, subscribe to the full-length list,
> and apply it, but please don't deny to those who do not want to apply a
> "personal" filter the freedom of using a "pre-set" filter if they
> choose to do so.
Again this is just another rendition of SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP, Roberto.
And I believe that you know this. If you don't, I must submit that your
level of understanding is lacking terribly.
> >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
> >of some part of the GA to have a censor, and I can get what I want,
> >ability of everyone to get on the pulpit and give us the benefit of
> >mightly thoughts or make a fool of themselves.
> No, there's one thing that we don't get, and namely the choice for a
> user to apply to a solution provided without the need for his/her
Intervention in some instances is of course expectable, even preferable.
But not when it comes to free speech on a PUBLIC mailing list discussing
> If you are so sure that people want to apply their own filters, why are
> you so afraid of a solution that leaves them the choice to the on
> whether to apply their own personalized filter or an "off-the-shelf"
I don't speak for Karl of course. But I believe as the "Motivations"
indicated on this list that your design and purpose for this form of
CENSORSHIP is one to Censor only certain individuals, most especially those
that don't agree with your point of view. That is disingenuous, Roberto.
> If we don't get subscibers to the "off-the-shelf" filtered list, of
> course we will discontinue it (no need for extra work in absence of
> market needs), but if we get subscribers, this will demonstrate that we
> have the need and that the "product" was useful.
Your interpretation of "Product" is an concerted and wanton effort to
SELECTIVELY CENSOR certain individuals. That is already on the
record as I indicated above, and you have already stated yourself.
> Ready to pick up the challenge, or not?
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at