Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content filter abuse for censorship

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:30:25 -0700

On Wed, 7 May 2003 06:42:16 -0700  
Phillip Hallam-Baker <Hallam-Baker> wrote:

> The abuse of spam filtering for other purposes is endemic and is
> censorship by the definition in my dictionary, the OED. 

Certainly.  However it is also a function of free speech.  Given free
speech, people say regrettable things.  That's life, and is one of the
costs of free speech.  Ditto with mail filtering, and in particular,
ditto with spam filtering.

> Private censorhip may be legal but it is no better than government
> censorship. 

There is a critical difference in that private activity is elective.
The choice may be ignorant, or simply stupid, but it remains a choice,
freely exercised.  Such cannot be said for government mandate.

> The biggest problem with most of the filtering censorship is that it
> is unaccountable and silent. 

So are whispering campaigns, slander, and other forms of skulking
deception.  However, mandating and enforcing only public speech is not a
correct address.

> It is NOT acceptable to offer spam blocking with your own personal
> predjudices as to who has the right to a political voice built in as
> an unannounced addition.

Agreed.  However there is a difference between identifying that wrong
and mandating that nobody may publish their opinions, prejudices, etc as
to spam blocking.  

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg