[WSIS CS-Plenary] Balancing Free Speech

Sun Oct 17 14:29:01 BST 2004

Dear Dale:

I am not sure if your response is an indication of your political
affiliation or of your studies in law. In either case, providing false
information - if that is true, though with the current 'republican
administration' it seems not - then the solution is to respond with the
correct ones, not to resort to a far worse remedy than the offense. These
are the basics of democracy. The solution clearly appears to me to be one
of tyranny.

This is of course assuming that your information about the cause of the
incident is related to the Republican Party. In the lack of an official
explanation or accusation, which seems to me as one of the basic human
rights for any entity persecuted by a government (or in this case may be a
group of them). What is happening to detainees from Afghanistan, even
American citizens, seems to have encouraged the current US administration
to apply the same for civil society. We are indeed on a very slippery
slope and the line should have been drawn much earlier when even the
rights of even a single individual are ignored.

The USA is refusing to abide by the Geneva conventions and/or subject its
military to international accountability. They are doing the same here.
Might does not make right.

I hope you can see the rightness of my analogy.

Sincerely,

Nabil El-Khodari
Founder/Treasurer
Nile Basin Society
Tel.: +1 (647) 722-3256
Fax: +1 (647) 722-3273

http://nilebasin.com
http://nilebasin.net
http://nile.ca
108 Waterbury Dr.
Toronto, Ontario, M9R 3Y3
Canada

"If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." Dr. David Suzuki

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
Behalf Of Dale s Plenary eMail
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:47 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Balancing Free Speech

Hello Jonathan:

A picture tells 1,000 words, an analogy tells 1,000 pictures, and an
allegory tells 1,000 analogies.  I wish I had the allegory.  Thank you
for pointing out the weak points of my analogy; analogies inherit the
week points of a picture which can not get the action of what the
picture represents.  This is likened to how a spreadsheet model of the
economy can not take into consideration what an individual consumer
will purchase at any given time.  No model accurately depicts reality.

I like that an idea can be discussed, taken apart, then put back
together as a better concept.  That would seem to be diplomacy at its
best.  The very fact that we are able to discuss this issue itself is
a wonderful thing.  It is an example of free speech.

I think if we put all of our ideas together, we could come up with:
1) Do not influence elections either by:
   1.1) Mass of the media (your FCC point below)
   1.2) Harassing individuals (my point below)
2) Allow the free flow of information so that ideas can be expressed
   2.1) Allow the minority opinion as well as the majority
   2.2) Allow for a freedom of expression
3) Play fair

I am sure there is more that could be codified given time.

In more general concepts:
1) Love your neighbor
2) Do not forsake the individual for the group
3) Be responsible with the power of the group

Kind regards,

Dale Chalfant

>
> Dear Dale,
>
> Thank you for your comments. It seems to me that your analogy is
imperfect
> on two counts. The first is the 'dangerous speech' analogy. Leaving
aside
> the issue of whether targeted speech is more or less likely to cause
cause
> injury than causing a panic, the fact remains that taking down the
servers
> in no way resembles cordoning off the theatre to keep the culprit
from
> escaping. It also does not prevent the escape of any potential
witnesses.
> This is a virtual space, remember? All it does is to create
the "impression
> of repression" which, I would submit, is a pretty loud cry of "fire!"
>
> Second, the incendiary impression given by the fact that
the 'victims' were
> Republican delegates to a convention that has long since finished is
> multiplied by the Sinclair Broadcast Group's intention to pre-empt
60 local
> stations for what is by all accounts a piece of anti-Kerry
propoganda on
> the eve of the election. As one of the US FCC Commissioners puts it:
>
> >
> >FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO
PREEMPT
> >LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST
> >
> >
> >
> >Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair
Broadcast
> >Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country
to air
> >an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential
election.
> >
> >Copps stated:  "This is an abuse of the public trust.  And it is
proof
> >positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the
public
> >airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology --
whether
> >liberal or conservative.  Some will undoubtedly question if this is
> >appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves.  This is the same
> >corporation that refused to air Nightline's reading of our war dead
in
> >Iraq.  It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local
communities and
> >local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of
miles
> >away.  It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest
protections we
> >once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal
> >Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to
get even
> >bigger.  Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous
road."
> >
> ><http://www.fcc.gov>www.fcc.gov
>
> So, while I applaud your clever argument, it seems to miss the main
point
> of the group's concerns - as I understand them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan
>
> At 04:30 15/10/2004, you wrote:
> >Hello:
> >
> >I have not posted before; I have been an observer.  I am coming
from the
> >view point of a technician (a programmer, DBA, UNIX admin, ...),
who is
> >now in law school, and I am a Citizen of the State of  California
in America.
> >
> >As I understand it, the indymedia servers were removed because they
> >contained information targeted at a group of individuals, the
delegates of
> >the Republican National Convention.  And, this information was used
to
> >harass people who were trying to go about the business of the
Republican Party.
> >
> >I concur if that is the case...
> >
> >Say someone was to yell; "Fire!" in the middle of a theater, and as
a
> >result, there were people hurt.  Further suppose the person was
still in
> >the general area.  The police, in an attempt to find the individual
for
> >justice, cordoned off the place.
> >
> >The police did not want to take the chance that the individual's
friends
> >would let the friend go (due to a knowledge that the were police
coming),
> >so the police did not notify anyone.  The law sealed off the area
and went
> >to looking and opened the area back up after that was done.
> >
> >Does that make sense?
> >
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >
> >Dale Chalfant
> >
> >I posted a bit more detail here if anyone may be interested:
> >http://cyb2law.blogspot.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Plenary mailing list
> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>

Dale Chalfant

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3036 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20041017/663743bf/smime.bin