Which is the bigger threat?]

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [IP] Which is the bigger threat?
Date:   Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:22:37 -0800
From:   Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross () stapleton-gray com>
To:     dave () farber net, spaf () cerias purdue edu
References:     <43E75DEE.4020903 () farber net>



At 06:32 AM 2/6/2006, Gene Spafford wrote:
> What is "right" is very specific to each culture/country, and
> sometimes to a political party or ethnic group.   How do we all reach
> common ground to say when it is appropriate to restrict dissemination
> of information -- if it ever is?
>
> Note, I'm not asking about the "right to free speech" which is
> actually a legal right, but only in some places.   I am asking about
> "right" in the ethical sense, as in it is the right thing to do, and
> to do otherwise is not right.

I think one needs to recognize the special case of religion, where, 
allegedly, there is an external imposition of "right."  (Recognize, but not 
necessarily ascribe to.)  If mystical incendiary shrubbery advised me that 
I should slay any infidels who attempted to depict His/Her/Its image, and I 
believed the consequence of failing to abide by that charge was eternal 
damnation, well, watch out infidels!

But those of us who are secular humanists and the like reject the idea that 
we've got that to deal with.

I think I'd go along with Stephen Hopkins, Continental Congressional 
delegate from Rhode Island, as depicted in "1776" (which I heartily 
recommend in these politicized times): "Well, in all my years I ain't never 
heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be 
talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything."

And I think that ought to extend to whether or not the President of the 
United States ought to have tyranical powers to surveil citizens in 
secret... let's watch closely to see how much of the *debate* is even 
allowed to be open to our scrutiny.

It's the prerogative of governments to control how much and what 
information they actively provide, perhaps, as much as I dislike the 
propagandizing and spinning I see in mine now (e.g., in promotion of 
abstinence-only education and suppression of information on other forms of 
birth control), subject to the laws they've passed (e.g., against covert 
domestic political propaganda) and understanding that the lot of them can 
be voted out of office for their behavior, if we're not happy.  In China, 
with its current government, it's government that elects how to deal with 
foreign information service providers like Google, and the China deal with 
Google is "right," in some sense (the bigger problem being what means 
citizens have to change their government, and hence policies).  On the 
other hand, there's no way the Chinese government can control the creation 
of content outside its borders, and fewer means every year to prevent that 
from leaking in, whatever arrangement they may be able to dictate to Google.

Ross



----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com





-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/