"mdR" <mrafn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:69a812e3-75fe-4ed2-9298-071e94b8a347@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <snip>
>> So why isn't comp.cad.pro-engineer a binary NG and why are there dweebs
>> that constantly remind you, if you try to post a jpeg here or a Pro/e
PRT
>> file, that this is a TEXT newsgroup. And how come this difference is
writ
>> in stone, like there's no path to change a group that was mistakenly
>> started as a text group into a binary one. Owner****p is clouded in
>> protocals; they set it up the way they wanted it and when you go to
>> change it they say you can't, it's just the way it's set up. Somebody
>> owns the rules! Who owns the rules owns the Internet.
>>
>> David Janes
>
> anyone can start their own NG with their own rules. the question is
> the level of participation you get.
> yeah-the guy is an obsessed basket case and it pisses me off also, but
> hey, freedom of speech is a huge freedom.
Okay, I know this is kinda far field, but at least it pertains to how to
regard the "bad manners" of spamming this group and whether we have the
character and backbone to stand against it. Here's my take on why we
should
not "take" spamming in the name of freedom of speech:
1) Rights are what we grant ourselves and each other, in any place in the
world, where the people are sovereign; therefore, if you GRANT spammers
the
right to spam you, they most certainly will;
2) There are very few protected and unrestricted forms of speech, press,
broadcast and none of them include spam; this has, in fact, in the USofA,
been legislated against, been successfully prosecuted and the
perpetrators,
jailed as abusers of that very right of free speech. So, we obviously can
and should distinguish between legitimate forms of speech that should be
protected and the illegitimate forms that should be banned and
prosecuted~there are no absolute rights, they're all, to some extent,
conditional;
3) When you own the newspaper, you have completely free expression;
everyone's else is, to some extent, restricted;
4) We restrict, regularly, inciteful, hatelful speech meant to goad the
population, or some segment of it, into action against an unpopular
minority;
5) The dumbass spammer is not the OP of the MI-5 diatribe; he's a spammer,
an infantile attention getter, the child you give a timeout in his room
with
no talking (thus limiting his free speech rights) and thus acknowledge,
regretably, that there are those in the world whose speech should be
restricted;
5) Try saying, in any workplace in the US, to a subordinate "Jesus ****ing
H
Christ, you dumbass ****ing moron, what the **** were you thinking!"
regarding some error that they made and see how far your 'free speech'
rights extend. Obviously, this is not an issue of a literary, fictional
work
of art. So, I make the point that there are contexts and
appropriate/inappropriate applications of this principle of free speech.
And
they are thus, so as not to diminish their im****t. Apply this principle,
where appropriate, but not in defense of the indefensible, nor in defense
of
trash, nor of trivia. Do not so diminish and trivialize this most
im****tant
right. Too many in the US, much less the world, have NO concept, nor know
the contents, of the Bill of Rights, the singularly most im****tant
do***ent
of civil liberties ever written. To trivialize those liberties is to
exaggerate and enhance that ignorance and indifference.
David Janes
|
