🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <288B3108.27C1@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
}According to pld@mcrc.mot.com:
}}It goes farther, though.  It says: "Your site is downstream from mine,
}}and I have the power to censor what you read based on MY Politically
}}Correct viewpoint."
}
}Freedom of speech must include the freedom to help other speak, and to
}be silent, and not to assist others in their speech.
}
}It is my right not to assist those who speak about Coherent.
}-- 
}Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
} "You can make use of the fact that UDP does not provide `reliable and
}  efficient streams' to eliminate the state, but then you are unreliable
}  and inefficent.  There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." -- Chris Torek

so what you are saying is that if you disagree with someone's point in
a certain area, then you have the right not to help them in pursuing
further thought in that area. let's take patents for example. i want to
create a patent that covers the novel idea of using a graphic image
(say an arrow) to represent the movement of the mouse relative to the
boundaries of the computer screen. now, you are opposed to patents. so,
i ask you who to write to obtain said patent. but, because you do not
believe in patents, you refuse to help me. of course this is your right.
however, you are yourself breaking the freedom that you stand behind, that
of freedom of speech (which i equate to freedom of information...one kind
anyway...spoken kind). you are withholding the freedom of information,
namely that of the address of the PTO. of course this is not detrimental
to me as i can find it elsewhere but this is not the case in point. (NOTE:
i believe your definition of Freedom of Speech above is incorrect. if it
were correct, then you would have no problem with the Supreme Court
inhibiting *any* of your freedoms, as it would fall under "not to assist
others in free speech").

while i do not agree with software patents, i find it rather hard to
agree with the fact that, "if X doesn't agree with Y, then it is 'ok'
to refuse to help Y".

let's take another example. we all know that the FSF does not support
the Macintosh as a computer platform for GNU software. now, let's say i
want to port GNUsed to my Mac IIci. i also am aware that the FSF doesn't
care about my port (i.e. they will not support it). however, does this
mean that they will refuse to help me if i am stuck in a certain routine?
if this is so, then the FSF does not believe in free software. what they
do believe in is 'free software' insofar as the goals of the FSF are
advanced. certainly i disagree with this too. while i might not want you
to port my program XYZ to computer FOO, i certainly won't withold the
knowledge of how the program works.

there was a philosopher who said something to the effect, "i might not
believe what you believe but i'll defend to my death your right to
believe it".

albert chin