From: Timothy Bates (tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999 - 20:03:44 MST
"Michael
made me laugh out loud by saying
> As long as the Brits are... going to throw the baby out the window, they
> might as well toss the bath water with it too....
;-)
Anyhow, I said
>> Is free speech all speech which does not
>> directly aid specific acts of violence?
and mike concurred
> yes.
We had a woman talk to us last year who supported Dworkin' s position that
whatever a powerless person (apparently this included women) said was
harmful was harmful. And the FACT of its harmfulness was proven by the
"victims" statement to that effect.
In other words, whatever I think is bad, is, and you have no defense
whatsoever and you will go to jail for causing me to say you harmed me.
This just about made me cry it is so stupidly arrogant.
So, how do we explicitly exclude from "violence" all notions of subjective
harm such as this?
Do we exclude people's "self esteem" and other such intangible's from their
property?
tim
PS: I think these are critical issues for extropy as many of the
technologies which we embrace are already illegal, and their adoption is
retarded if the law forbids their free discussion.
I was surprised too, to see that this list is not wrapped up in
encryption/privacy discussions, as it was some years ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:12 MST