On Internet and social responsibility

Mon Sep 17 14:10:37 UTC 2001

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Greg Mirsky wrote:

> Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was
> talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen
> terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to
> those who rebel for cause).

I think we all understood this, however, my understanding is that this
site is on an American server, owned by an American company, and is
physically in the U.S. - correct me if this is wrong.

> Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is
> a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why
> you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment? 

(1) My customers benefit from my freedoms. (2) If we are going to spout
off about free speech, then we need to PRACTICE it.

> How it's
> applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to
> spread its ideas? 

See above.  People on my servers are covered by the laws of my country.

> Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists
> using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it?

I would have NO problem with Laden using my servers either.

> Would your
> company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them
> with 24*7 customer support?

Absolutely.

> If not, please try to explain to me, where's
> difference?
> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Walden [mailto:andy at tigerteam.net]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:02 PM
> To: David Schwartz
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: RE: On Internet and social responsibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >
> > I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech
> > means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours
> to
> > use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
> 
> Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do
> with you or me and what we tell each other. Actually Freedom of Speech
> means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with
> U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> 

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------