🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: but i think that that fight should be tempered by respect for what
: information needs to be spread widely, and what should be kept private.
: what purpose does it serve to have people spreading the nasty details....
: freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
: than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

I think the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret is a 
*VERY* good reason for trying to spread the information as far as 
possible.  Gov't needs to be shown that censorship is impractical, 
ineffective and wrong.  The last probably can't be shown just by writing 
endlessly 'KH plead guilty of manslaughter' (or whatever, that's just my 
heresay on the Net, and I don't really much care one way or another about 
the plee or the trial... except that the trial be fair, of course).  But 
at least if an attempt at censorship blows up in their face, the gov't 
(the judge in particular) won't be quite so inclined to do it in the 
future.  That's on the 'impractical and ineffective' part.

As to this other thing recently discussed much about the "responsibility" 
of Usenet posters not to create trouble for Canadian citizens (wherever 
the posters are from), that just seems dreadfully wrong to me.  
Censorship arguments virtually always center around "responsibility" of 
those potentially censored.  If I write from the US with information 
banned from Canada (or just Ontario, or whatever), and that gets a 
newsgroup blocked from distribution, that's something to blame on the 
censors, not on the poster.  It's fine to be irritated at rude posters, 
or ones who say noxious things -- but one must vigorously protect their 
*right* to post noxiously.  At a personal level one might urge people not 
to say offensive things, but at a more important political level it's 
important they can say them.  Of course, this thing about the plea isn't 
offensive in itself -- but only insofar as it "provoke" the censors.  To 
have "free expression" of only those willing to express themselves 
"responsibly" is the WORST sort of censorship because it's wholly 
internalized.  But blaming the "irresponsible" speakers for the 
censorship is classic victim blaming -- one might as well blame "uppity 
blacks" for "provoking" attacks by the KKK, or scantily clad women for 
"provoking" rape.  The actions of those attacked aren't always terribly 
good (either as in 'wise', or as in 'nice'), but the blame is still put 
in the wrong place if assigned to the attacked (or censored).

: i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
: the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

I take it this is a US vs. Canada thing.  I certainly think the US has 
many dreadful coverups, and censorships.  Overall, the US is considerably 
less democratic than Canada (hell, than Cuba too).  But still, that 
hardly excuses Canadian censors just because they have a worse neighbor 
to the south.

Yours, Lulu...

--
      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
     _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
    _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/