🚀 go-pugleaf

	Forward to bypass UUNET censorship.

In article <4nrlkn$t3t@villa.fc.net>,
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ricardo@paranoia.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Kamens (jik@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
>: In article <4na631$if3@villa.fc.net>, ricardo@paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales) writes:
>: |> As an aside, this would be a good way to close the argument with the
>: |> right-wing extremists who think USENET needs to be censored.  They
>: |> would be able to get their desired censorship for themselves and
>: |> their children without effecting the open feed others desires.  This
>: |> would certainly be better than having to go to court over free
>: |> speech.
>
>: If this were only true.
>
>: Unfortunately, the "right-wing extremists" who are going after the
>: Usenet nowadays are not, by and large, of the "open-minded" type who
>: say, "We'll be fine as long as there's a way for us to prevent *our*
>: children from seeing this stuff." What they say is, "We'll fight until
>: *no one* can see this stuff." They aren't interested in free speech;
>: they're interested in "wiping smut off of the Internet."
>
>The latter argument will never gain the approval of the public, while
>the first one is shaky.  If you defeat the first one, you stop the
>censors.  Do you care enough to try or will you and others give up 
>without fighting for free expression and personal protection from it?
>We should let people see as much or as little as they want and this
>is easy enough to do today.  Why don't you stop this "you are different,
>so you are a kook" nonsense and work together towards a solution?
>Some of you people make it look like you thrive on net abuse so that
>you can feel important and control things.  I think it would be
>better to obsolete net abuse by providing filters for everyone.
>What'll it be folks?
>
>: Incidentally, Ricardo, I agree with Russ -- NoCeM is exactly what
>: you're proposing.  
>
>No.  I have posted several flaws with NoCeM that do not exist in my
>method.  Since I asked for people to correct any errors in my labelling
>of those flaws and did not receive any responses, those flaws were 
>probably on the mark.
>
>-Ric
>