Sam Joseph ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Freedom of speech didn't exist in any
> countries five hundred years ago, but that is hardly any basis to say
> that it shouldn't be introduced.
Anonymous encrypted distributed free speech didn't exist in any countries
five years ago, but that is hardly any basis to say that Freenet shouldn't
be introduced.
> I mean if they realise they can't filter Freenet like they can filter
> the internet, they'll just ban it completely, and then what have we
> achieved.
An underground.
Do you think that the copyright laws in the US mattered much to the
millions of people who traded copyrighted music on Napster?
Do you think that the anti-drug laws in the US matter much to the millions
of people who use and/or sell illegal drugs in the US?
Do you think that anti-Freenet laws in some hypothetical country will
matter much to the millions of people in that country who want to use
Freenet?
> Societies are like ecologies, introduce the wrong concepts (read
> organisms) at the wrong time can lead to complete destruction of that
> ecology.
Who are *you* to say that the people of China should not have free speech?
I say, let the Chinese decide this themselves. They're humans, not some
sort of laboratory animals! You can't go around protecting the rest of
the world from the Horrible Free Speech Virus just because it might upset
their fragile oppression and lead to an uprising or even civil war.
If the "ecology" (read: socio-economic system and governemnt) in question
is so unstable that *anonymous free speech* can cause it to collapse, then
it was going to collapse *anyway*, sooner or later.
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
PGP signature
