(Little crypto relevance, some technology) jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada)) writes:
I think it is safe to say, especially regarding coverage of the Internet by popular medias, that even if there are some journalists that still have integrity most of their bosses don't.
They may have integrity; they just adhere to different moral principles. E.g., if their salaries are paid by the advertisers, they may feel that they owe their allegiance to the advertisers, not the readers, and that pleasing the advertisers is more important than telling the (whole) truth.
U.S. No one can determine which of the countless bits of information that travel over the Internet every second are false, or harmful, or subversive, or otherwise not worthy of transnmission.
Well, here I don't completely agree. *you* can determine what is worth and what is not.
I can determine what's not worth reading for me. (I wish I had better technical means to filter out the incoming traffic that I know is not worth my reading -- freedom of non-association, in addition to freedom of speech and freedom of association :-). I could share my opinions with others (through a rating system or by publicly urging everyone to *plonk* someone I don't like, although I find this in bad taste). I can't determine that an item is so unworthy that it should be suppressed and that someone else should be deprived of his right to read it. In my opinion, I can't determine that a certain item of information is not worth being published/transmitted at all. Someone else is likely to be interested in the information that I'm not interested in.
But again, I suppose that if you have rationnal arguments, you will be able to convince other rationnal individuals. I am not in favor of broadcasting neo-nazi scum all over because I think that their essence is the same as the underlying the censorship movement. They share the same vision of man, only
Frankly, I've never looked at the stuff the WC is trying to suppress. I know enough on the subject to be convinced that it's not worth my time and effort. But if someone wants to publish it, and someone else wishes to read what they publish, they should be at liberty to do that. I don't think they're the same as the WC's, who seek to suppress speech. As for pciking a more popular cause for a test case, yes, I wish there was something more savory (like PRC or SG dissidents), but "popular speech doesn't need protection". --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps