|
What is free speech?
Subject: What is free speech?
From: Angel
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Free speech is often mentioned here on NANAE (not in the least by
spammers and kooks trying to defend their abuse), but what is it really?
That question has been bothering me for a while. The things you start
thinking about when you've taken two weeks off to relax...
Anyway, here's how I see it. Someone will probably correct me if I'm
wrong. Heck, this is NANAE, someone will probably correct me if I am
right... :-)
'me' in the following text refers to me, the poster. 'you' is the
generic you, I'm not targetting anyone specific.
- Telling the world that I have drawn x-rated images is free speech. This
is a fact, easily verified by anyone who'd care to look.
- Saying that my images suck is free speech. This is an opinion, and I
wouldn't even disagree with you since I am my own worst critic.
- Saying that I am a criminal is NOT free speech. This is a false and
libellous statement, and goes against one of the prime principles of
justice in the civilized world: innocent until proven guilty.
Spreading such lies is actionable in most countries and free speech
defenses won't fly.
However, saying that I am a criminal when you can point to a
conviction would be free speech, since then it has become a fact. This
is the reason why you see the word 'alleged' in many news stories,
even if it is perfectly clear that "he dun it": You can't call someone
a criminal until he or she has been convicted.
Moving on to blocklists, I see it as follows:
- "We recommend blocking email from this IP, spam has been received at
<date> <time>, here is an example <link>" is a statement based on a
verifyable fact and thus free speech.
- "We recommend blocking email from this IP, we believe it to be
dynamically assigned." is a statement based (assumed) on the best
effort of an operator. Without knowing the internals of the ISP in
question, it's difficult to say whether or not this is a fact, but I
still think it is free speech regardless. I think this is where the
"good faith" provision in US code 47 comes into play, isn't it?
- "We recommend blocking email from this IP, we think that the ISP it
belongs to is not enforcing their AUP adequately." is an opinion (most
likely backed up by facts such as spam coming from said ISP) and thus
free speech.
Free speech also depends on the medium used:
- Making a statement (based on fact or opinion) in a public medium like
an independent newspaper, or by publishing it on a website, is free
speech.
- Making a statement in a newsgroup, bulleting board, etc. where it is
off topic is NOT free speech. The right to free speech does not, IMHO,
dismiss you from the obligation to choose an adequate medium for your
message.
- Making a statement by spraypainting it on a building, blast it to
private mailboxes through an open proxy, defacing a website or
otherwise vandalizing other people's property is not free speech. Free
speech is not a 'get out of jail for free' card, you still have to
obey the rules and respect other people's property rights.
- Making statements to me by email, postal mail or other private
communication, when I have clearly indicated that I do not wish to
hear from you, is not free speech. It is harrassment, actionable in
most countries. Free speech does not include an obligation for anyone
to listen.
>Free speech is not limitless.
It often clashes with other freedoms, like
freedom of religion, the right to unimpaired enjoyment of property, or
even simply a wish from the other party to be left alone. "Your right to
swing your fists ends where my nose begins." is a phrase used to express
this.
And free speech also applies to others. If other people disagree with
your statements, they certainly have the same rights as you to express
that disagreement.
As for the US Constitution, so often quoted in 'Free speech!' defenses,
I understand that it only prevents government from making laws that
impair free speech. Private individuals can make any and all rules they
like on media under their control. 1) "My server, my rules." is often heard
on NANAE to express this.
- Even that right is not limitless. A rule to refuse black people could
potentially still get the owner in trouble. For example, the Dutch
constitution has a law that explicitly forbids discrimination on race,
gender, religion and sexual orientation. (2)
- This rule applies to all who abide in the Netherlands, not just to the government. (3)
- Of course there are exceptions. For example, there are cases where it genuinely matters if one is male or female. :-)
Angel
Subject: Re: What is free speech?
From: DLU
Message-ID: <1pXuf.914$WY5.399@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
It was mainly written to prevent the government from prohibiting the
publishing of books and pamphlets, and public discourse.
It also says that free speech ends at my front door. I can get up in a
public park and harangue the local citizenry, or in most cases in public
meetings. That does not give me the right to do so in the supermarket,
or on private property. I can however solicit petitions and voter
registration on private property that is open to the public, like at the
entrance to the supermarket.
Subject: Re: What is free speech?
From: Quaestor
Message-ID: <11rnub6e2preq25@news.supernews.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
The problem we see is that so many believe that Free Speech excuses
other crimes. It does not.
You can say you hate the USA.
You can burn a flag to say it.
You can NOT haul a flag down from a Federal building and burn that, Because it is not your property.
You cannot shoot the president (damn it!) to say it, because (incredible as it may seem) there are laws against that.
You have every right in the world to go on hollering how you hate the USA, while they drag you away to the pen for
your crimes.
While doing 30-to-life you can write and publish books (though not about the workings of the prison, since this might be part
of an escape attempt), but you CAN be prohibited from profiting from their sale, since that part is Not a protected right.
|