Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 13/12/02 1:36 am, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] The *only* application I see regularly crash is Internet Explorer, which will 'unexpectedly quit' after it has been running for a week or two. That's what you get for running java/javascript/activeX controls. But stuff like my Internet Banking wouldn't work without. So that wouldn't be very useful. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
At 10:59 AM 12/13/02 +, William T Goodall wrote: Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 Look around you at all the essential crap piled around your computer. Looks like at least 1500 kg* to me . . . (*for Alberto) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 13/12/02 12:55 pm, Ronn! Blankenship at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:59 AM 12/13/02 +, William T Goodall wrote: Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 Look around you at all the essential crap piled around your computer. Looks like at least 1500 kg* to me . . . My office is cantilevered off the side of the building, so I'm not sure I want too much crap piled up in here... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: woensdag 11 december 2002 20:24 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court What about posession of child pornography? Do you think that it should be given the same consideration? I understand that it's a different situation, but you can be prosecuted in this country (and entirely, completely rightly so) for possessing pornographic materials that were neither manufactured by you or in your country of origin. Does that apply to *all* pornographic material, or only to child pornography? Over here in The Netherlands, possession of child pornography is illegal, but possession of other pornographic material is legal (and easily obtainable: you can find sex shops in every city, and they aren't exactly hidden away in some back alley). Jeroen Three times a day keeps the doctor away van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 11/12/02 6:47 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the reason for making this distinction? I'm still not clear why the slightly sloppy reference to freedom of the press as freedom of speech in publishing needs to be corrected in quite that manner. Why not say technically that's freedom of the press and leave it at that? Because I'm pedantic? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 11/12/02 7:00 pm, Jon Gabriel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /mini rant/ Although I have to say that I completely *loathe* OS X. Installed 'Jaguar' on my G4 dual processor at work along with a host of newly X-compliant apps and have never, ever seen so many application crashes. Adobe, Apple, AOL, Claris, Microsoft, Intuit... it's no longer limited to a single manufacturer or to a single behavior. Arrgh! My WinXP machine at home never crashes this much and it's put through much more demanding paces than this machine. /mini rant/ Sounds like something is seriously wrong with your setup. I have been running Mac OS X since the public beta (on two different Macs) and even then it was pretty stable (if a tad slow). Each release has been an improvement, and Jaguar is the fastest and most reliable of them all. The *only* application I see regularly crash is Internet Explorer, which will 'unexpectedly quit' after it has been running for a week or two. Relaunch it and it will run another week or two and so on. OK, and if I run top in a terminal window, it will make the terminal quit after several days. And the RealOne Player 9.0b2 will refuse to quit and has to be 'kill -9'ed - but it is beta software. Uptime 7:21PM up 6 days, 22:05 - last reboot was for some software security update or something. Next step is to reinitialize the hard drive, install new partitions and start from scratch. :-( I don't bother partitioning drives. Weird old-fashioned hoodoo. I have a 120GB FireWire drive all as one volume. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/12/02 7:00 pm, Jon Gabriel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /mini rant/ Although I have to say that I completely *loathe* OS X. Installed 'Jaguar' on my G4 dual processor at work along with a host of newly X-compliant apps and have never, ever seen so many application crashes. Adobe, Apple, AOL, Claris, Microsoft, Intuit... it's no longer limited to a single manufacturer or to a single behavior. Arrgh! My WinXP machine at home never crashes this much and it's put through much more demanding paces than this machine. /mini rant/ Sounds like something is seriously wrong with your setup. I have been running Mac OS X since the public beta (on two different Macs) and even then it was pretty stable (if a tad slow). Each release has been an improvement, and Jaguar is the fastest and most reliable of them all. The *only* application I see regularly crash is Internet Explorer, which will 'unexpectedly quit' after it has been running for a week or two. Relaunch it That's what you get for running java/javascript/activeX controls. I haven't crashed IE in...I don't remember it's been that long. I usually have at least five going, for several weeks at a time. and it will run another week or two and so on. OK, and if I run top in a terminal window, it will make the terminal quit after several days. And the RealOne Player 9.0b2 will refuse to quit and has to be 'kill -9'ed - but it is beta software. Uptime 7:21PM up 6 days, 22:05 - last reboot was for some software security update or something. Next step is to reinitialize the hard drive, install new partitions and start from scratch. :-( I don't bother partitioning drives. Weird old-fashioned hoodoo. I have a 120GB FireWire drive all as one volume. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
From: Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379819086.html Gutnick wins right to have Web libel case heard in Vic Canberra December 10 2002 Why is having a defamation case heard in the jurisdiction of the distribution and consumption of the material, where it coincides with the alledged victim's domicile striking down free speech? This is by far one of the single biggest attacks on freedom of speech that has ever been carried out. Any American who exercises their first amendment rights is now subject to Australian law. This sets Australian law higher than even the U.S. constitution, and makes all Americans slaves to the censorship laws the predominate in Australia. Anything I say online may now be prosecuted in Australia under Australian law. I doubt it will be much longer before all countries have declared their laws sovereign over the U.S. constitution. How long will it be before Saudi Arabia tries to prosecute me for saying 'Mohammed was a pedophile who was inspired with his lips around Satans penis'? It still has to go to court, Dow Jones is a professional publishing house, and a story about Gutnick could reasonably expected to be targeted to include an Australian audience... Has there ever been free speech in publishing? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 11/12/02 12:54 pm, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379819086.html Gutnick wins right to have Web libel case heard in Vic Canberra December 10 2002 Why is having a defamation case heard in the jurisdiction of the distribution and consumption of the material, where it coincides with the alledged victim's domicile striking down free speech? This is by far one of the single biggest attacks on freedom of speech that has ever been carried out. Any American who exercises their first amendment rights is now subject to Australian law. This sets Australian law higher than even the U.S. constitution, and makes all Americans slaves to the censorship laws the predominate in Australia. I doubt anybody is going to be extradited from the USA to Australia for a defamation case. I doubt any damages awarded by an Australian court are going to be enforceable in the USA. So it doesn't make any difference to American individuals (except that if they defame people in country X, they might be wise not to travel to country X in future.) It only matters for international companies who have branches and assets in country X. It still has to go to court, Dow Jones is a professional publishing house, and a story about Gutnick could reasonably expected to be targeted to include an Australian audience... Has there ever been free speech in publishing? No. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
Dan Minette wrote: What are the odds on the New York Times winning their case? Slim and None, and Slim is heading out the door. nitpick It's not the NYT, it's Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal and Barron's. Totally different animals. /nitpick Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court on 11/12/02 12:54 pm, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has there ever been free speech in publishing? No. Why doesn't the Pentagon Paper ruling count as free speech for publishing? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court Dan Minette wrote: What are the odds on the New York Times winning their case? Slim and None, and Slim is heading out the door. nitpick It's not the NYT, it's Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal and Barron's. Totally different animals. nitpick right back I was referring to a hypothetical article about the Saudi royal family. The NYT hypothetically published that article. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
[EMAIL PROTECTED]01df01c2a0d0$86d457e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 028101c2a13d$8ef9ae80$[EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b2 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Id: Discussions of the writings of science fiction/futurist authors David Brin and Gregory Benford. brin-l.mccmedia.com List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dan Minette wrote: nitpick right back I was referring to a hypothetical article about the Saudi royal family. The NYT hypothetically published that article. :-) Did they at least win a hypothetical Pulitzer? ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
on 11/12/02 5:43 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court on 11/12/02 12:54 pm, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has there ever been free speech in publishing? No. Why doesn't the Pentagon Paper ruling count as free speech for publishing? That would be an instance of free speech. I took the rhetorical question to mean 'there never been free speech in publishing generally', to which specific instances of free speech are not a counterexample. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court on 11/12/02 5:43 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court on 11/12/02 12:54 pm, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has there ever been free speech in publishing? No. Why doesn't the Pentagon Paper ruling count as free speech for publishing? That would be an instance of free speech. I took the rhetorical question to mean 'there never been free speech in publishing generally', to which specific instances of free speech are not a counterexample. OK, I guess you are technically correct. There is no free speech in publishing; just freedom of the press as given in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What was the reason for making this distinction? I'm still not clear why the slightly sloppy reference to freedom of the press as freedom of speech in publishing needs to be corrected in quite that manner. Why not say technically that's freedom of the press and leave it at that? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. I'd say that says more about M$Windows programmers than it does about monkeys. Totally different animal. :-) /mini rant/ Although I have to say that I completely *loathe* OS X. Installed 'Jaguar' on my G4 dual processor at work along with a host of newly X-compliant apps and have never, ever seen so many application crashes. Adobe, Apple, AOL, Claris, Microsoft, Intuit... it's no longer limited to a single manufacturer or to a single behavior. Arrgh! My WinXP machine at home never crashes this much and it's put through much more demanding paces than this machine. /mini rant/ Next step is to reinitialize the hard drive, install new partitions and start from scratch. :-( Jon Who Needs It? Maru _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
The Fool wrote: This is by far one of the single biggest attacks on freedom of speech that has ever been carried out. Any American who exercises their first amendment rights is now subject to Australian law. This sets Australian law higher than even the U.S. constitution, and makes all Americans slaves to the censorship laws the predominate in Australia. Anything I say online may now be prosecuted in Australia under Australian law. I doubt it will be much longer before all countries have declared their laws sovereign over the U.S. constitution. How long will it be before Saudi Arabia tries to prosecute me for saying 'Mohammed was a pedophile who was inspired with his lips around Satans penis'? What about posession of child pornography? Do you think that it should be given the same consideration? I understand that it's a different situation, but you can be prosecuted in this country (and entirely, completely rightly so) for possessing pornographic materials that were neither manufactured by you or in your country of origin. There are obviously differences. Jon _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
- Original Message - From: Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court The Fool wrote: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379819086.html Gutnick wins right to have Web libel case heard in Vic Canberra December 10 2002 Why is having a defamation case heard in the jurisdiction of the distribution and consumption of the material, where it coincides with the alledged victim's domicile striking down free speech? It still has to go to court, Dow Jones is a professional publishing house, and a story about Gutnick could reasonably expected to be targeted to include an Australian audience... Has there ever been free speech in publishing? That is the foundation of free speech in the US. IIRC, Jefferson said, If I had to choose between newspapers and no government or government and no newspapers, I'd choose the former. (Implied in this was the freedom to publish.) The difficulty is as defined in the coverage. By the High Courts ruling, an article published on the internet concerning the connections between Saudi princes and terrorism could be tried in Saudi courts. What are the odds on the New York Times winning their case? Slim and None, and Slim is heading out the door. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
