Martin Pool <mbp@pharos.com.au> writes:
It's easy to believe in freedom in the abstract: you have to look at the boundary cases to decide what you really believe.
Very true. That comment is worthy of a .sig quote. It's the boundary cases that define the difference between `do you believe in unconditional free speech' or `do you believe in free speech as long as it doesn't offend you. I would also say that just because someone is saying something unpopular doesn't make me want to stick my neck out in mirroring it if it's dangerous to do so. Technological solutions are the answer, cf Tim's comments on Blacknet, and anonymous USENET posts. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`