OFF - and multiply!

[M Holmes]

Chris Bates writes:

> It might suprise libertarians but not everyone has your incredibly
> highly developed critical faculties, people are influenced by the
> information they receive. The internet is the fastest method yet
> developed of spreading rumour and hatred. By the time a denial has been
> disseminated the lies of extremists are already in the public
> domain and being accepted. Not everyone who sees the lie will ever
> see a rebutal.

When it's underground there *is* no rebuttal. I'd rather have it out in
the open where iconoclasts like myself can aim both barrels and shoot
'em down.

Call me naive, but I live in the hope that actually demonstrating how to
take dumb arguments apart on the Internet might just help a few people
develop some critical faculties. I've certainly put in my time arguing
both with the British National Party and with the Anti-Nazi League. One
for racist views and the other for attacking freedom of speech.

[...]

> That's right. Some people, for instance, want to kill Jews or
> remove non-whites from parts of Europe. I presume that you don't
> think it right for people to do these things? Laws DO NOT exist
> to please anyone. they are there so that we can all co-exist
> with the minmum of hassle. If you don't like that then fair
> enough, you don't have to obey the law provided you are willing to
> take the consequences should you be caught. This is a noble tradition
> amongst British political dissidents from the anti-poll tax campaign
> back.

Fairy Nuff, but I'd like to at least distinguish between laws with
actuall victims (be they dead Jews or similar) and laws which are
intended merely to control people from some claimed harm to themselves.
We're arguing about victimless crime laws here, specifically the right
of adults to read and view what they please.

> What you do not have the right to do, in my view, is remove
> protection from the vulnerable to satisfy your own desires.

Exactly how would anyone "vulnerable" be affected were I to view a
picture of a couple having sex?

> No. As I've demonstrated above the internet is different because
> it allows the dissemination of propaganda without a *right of
> reply*. This can surely not be called communication!

There's always a right to reply on the Internet. The fact that someone
might not read it doesn't alter that.

> > Which is a taking a complete liberty over childless couples who not
> > only live in the area but are burdened by the ridiculous cost of
> > installing these monstrosities, those sleeping policemen are ruining my
> > suspension! It seems to me that responsible people (ie those that avoid
> > children!) are always paying the cost of others desire to propagate their
> > own seeds in a bizarre attempt at immortality!
>
> Excuse me! But what the hell is this all about? There are 2 points
> I take from this: you believe that traffic control/calming is a bad
> thing (so presumably you feel free to ignore speed limits), you object
> to paying for other peoples children. Are you therefore opposed to
> state education, state health care, dole, pensions - all of which
> are benefits accruing to others from your taxes.

Let me go on record as being opposed to those things where people are
*forced* to contribute. I believe that they would be (mostly) Good
Things if contributions were voluntary.

> > > Giving them the right to ban pornographers on the Net means that after
> > > that we exist only by permission. If they get the right to ban anyone,
> > > they get the right to ban us.
> >
> > And that, sadly is that!
>
> Where it's state funded that is, and should remain, the case.

And let's see now: the State gets to decide who gets into the
telecommunications business. A pretty good stitchup eh?

> Chris

FoFP