Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v25jnf$1n4f4$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> Newsgroups: news.software.nntp Subject: Re: Young people peering Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 18:36:31 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: <v25jnf$1n4f4$1@dont-email.me> References: <uvgh5a$1d8l$10@gallifrey.nk.ca> <v00uqn$325p1$6@dont-email.me> <1qsc0up.13veal619hghjyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <pan$41e02$5cd2b8cd$17b8edad$51cc5831@invalid.invalid> Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:36:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3fa426a8362a67264bdf5d098d8e7aab"; logging-data="1806820"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hSNpqfv1N8ooLke2WuFygjp0ahLv7MUI=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:ju59Ti5d405UZahKofTfHYt0WNs= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 3414 Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Sn!pe wrote: >>You appear to be advocating censorship. Usenet is a rare bastion of >>free speech. All shades of opinion are given equal weight in the court >>of its readership, including those opinions that some do not like. This >>is in the nature of debate. Valid arguments will win debates, others >>will fail. >Ignoring the fact that even free speech has limitations, Free speech and censorship are concepts related to action by GOVERNMENT, not by individuals. Under United States law, speech by individuals is unlimited (but there are certain restrictions upon false claims made in advertisement in commercial speech). Speech, in and of itself, is never criminal. There are consequences in very limited circumstances. Person A may sue Person B for defamation but person B's the extent that Person B's statement was truthful is always a defense. Defamation isn't merely having taken offense. In criminal cases, the controlling standard is government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) >Usenet is not remotely an example of free speech-newsserver admins can >freely downshut anything they don't like, and many servers require a >fee to use, prohibiting the impoverished from using them. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom of the press. That isn't government abridging rights. A News administrator enjoys freedom of the press because he is providing his own resources. He has set up a News server and has connected it to the Usenet network. An individual user does not and cannot enjoy freedom of the press on someone else's News site. However, if he sets up his own News site, then press freedom belongs to him. >The conceptualization of discussion as "debates" to be "won" is >regressive. That's meaningless. >All members of a discussion come in with the goal of >expanding their knowledge, and whether or not their original position upon >entrance is correct or not is wholly irrelevant to the final outcome. That's simply not true at all. Plenty of people willfully post STOOPID to provoke a reaction with zero interest in honest debate and without offering well thought out arguments, as you have done in this very sentence.