Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
At 6:35 AM 8/31/96, Arun Mehta wrote:
There are two sides to this: after all, it is the Singaporeans who finally have to sort out this problem with their government, and denying them the Usenet platform for discussion would only hinder that process.
The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages! (This was done by many of us during the Karla Homulka and Teale trial in Canada a couple of years ago: Canada imposed press restrictions on discussion of the trial and the grisly evidence...and then was chagrinned to find that the global Net did not adhere to their notions of what should and could be discussed. They even seized copies of "Wired" at the border, very much akin to Singapore's stone age policies.)
Then again, inappropriate postings are the bane of the Internet: the consensus on which the Net functions relies heavily on people not posting inappropriately.
This works imperfectly, as all long-time surfers of the Usenet will attest! And _never_ has it involved determinations of "inappropriate" by _governments_! Our point in protesting Singapore's actions (and Germany's, France's, America's, India's, etc., in other cases) is to technologically subvert their notions that their politicians can determine what the Net, Web, and Usenet carry. To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't). The point of being sometimes "impolite" (*) is to "force their hand." (* I find it Orwellian that being "polite" is taken to mean not saying anything controversial. It was impolite for Salman Rushdie to write "The Satanic Verses," is was impolite for people to mention Karla Homulka in talk.politics.canada, it was impolite to point out that the prime minister of India drinks a glass of his own urine every day, it was impolite to refer to Bill Clinton's dalliances with Paula Jones, and so on. In a free society, all things are discussable. That various countries want to make the Net less free is not something we should support, even if it is more "polite" to accede to the wishes of their dictators, secret policemen, demagogues, preachers, and henchmen.) --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]
Senile tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) (fart) rants:
(* I find it Orwellian that being "polite" is taken to mean not saying anything controversial. It was impolite for Salman Rushdie to write "The Satanic Verses," is was impolite for people to mention Karla Homulka in talk.politics.canada, it was impolite to point out that the prime minister of India drinks a glass of his own urine every day, it was impolite to refer to Bill Clinton's dalliances with Paula Jones, and so on.
Paula Jones is a virtuous woman. Her boss, Bill Clinton, pulled down his pants and ordered her to kiss his erect penis. She refused and was fired. I think it's factually incorrect to describe this sexual harrassment as "dalliances", but we already know that senile Tim May (fart) never lets any facts get in the way of his agenda. It may be impolite to fart in senile Tim May's (fart) general direction, but we do. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't).
Unless they adopt "Assassination Protection [of the "ignorant" masses]!! And they won't use remailers ... EBD
--Tim May
-- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]
Isn't that mostly an American thing? bd On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Brian Davis wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't).
Unless they adopt "Assassination Protection [of the "ignorant" masses]!!
And they won't use remailers ...
EBD
--Tim May
-- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]
Brad Dolan wrote: Isn't that mostly an American thing?
bd
But we've taught them so much .... bd2
On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Brian Davis wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't).
Unless they adopt "Assassination Protection [of the "ignorant" masses]!!
And they won't use remailers ...
EBD
--Tim May
-- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages!
Just let to add my comment in regard to this unforuntate discusssion. To understand the sitution better, you should not impose America idealogy and perspection on how things to be done to Singapore. Singapore maybe young but there are certain culture too. Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad influence of it. We can go into the same discussion about whose responsibilty it is but before you do that, please bear in mind that this is Singapore. As an example of what i mean, few years back, when they introduced R rating movies uncensored in Singapore for people above 18, it cause a surge in soft-porn movie to be screened. There is a general dissatifaction among the people and the government was force to shift the age limit to 21. And then later revised the R rating to R(A), where A stands for artistic which rules out soft-porn. It may be surprising but many people (in Singapore) do welcome censorship sad to say. In addition, you need to see the method of censorship deployed in Singapore. For press media like papers and magazine, it is done in a passive manner. They _do not_ read every issue of every magazine available in Singapore. They only do so when there is enough complains. For example, the incident of "Wired" banning due to the article "Disney with a Death Penalty" was prompted by complains by the public before action is done. (This is related to me by some frens of mine working in the ministry who is directly involved in the incident). Similarly, they are deploying the same method to WWW. One more point. They know it is impossible to censor everything. It is possible for me to order Wired directly from US. But still they do it. To quote, "We are doing it for the sake of doing it. The intention is to make it difficult to access to such information although we know it is impossible to prevent all." (I may missed some words but the idea is that). I have a long argument with this person, telling him that despite what they have done, i could still access to those stuff which they ban. his reasoning is "how many people can do it? 10%? 5%? That's fine with us. If the people really wans it, they can get it". In actual fact, the move to put all people on proxy was not a surprise to many of us. The first time i know of such an intention was in Aug 95, which is one year back. They _have_ been doing studies and testing since then. The ISPs have been well informed and have been doing their own testing too since then. I am writting this based on an experience in Singapore for more than 12 yrs (Yes, i am not a Singaporean). if you wish to rebuke the points which i mention above, please feel free to do so but do so in the context wrt Singapore culture. Do not impose the general idealogy and culture within your country into your argument. (Oh yea, dont give me the "Bull shit! This fren of mine so-and-so have said that ....". We talking about general idealogy of the people, not of a single person) Lastly, do _not_ misunderstood that i support the censorship. I never do and never will. Nor do i really feels that what they doing are right. There are some people like me who disapproved the moves but the voice is really too small to make a difference...yet.
To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't).
Now, what makes you think that citizen of Country A has the power or rights to tell politicians of Country B what to do and what they cannot do? Just wondering. ps: Sorry for the off-topic discussion. -James Seng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, James Seng wrote:
Now, what makes you think that citizen of Country A has the power or rights to tell politicians of Country B what to do and what they cannot do? Just wondering.
I have every right as a citizen of country A to tell politicians of country B what they should or shouldn't do. This isn't about American Ideology; it's about natural rights. Politicians of country B can refuse to listen to me or attempt to prevent my corrupt ideas from polluting the minds of its citizens, but they won't succeed very well with the latter. Of course, politicians may be satisfied with making sure that only the most determined citizens will be able to access information they don't want citizens to access, but as technology progresses, it will become much more difficult to prevent this information from spreading to the masses.
ps: Sorry for the off-topic discussion.
Cpunks is certainly not the best place to be discussing free speech. However, the link between free speech and the spread of cryptographic technology is too close to completely overlook. - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered. Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMipSASzIPc7jvyFpAQFYyAgAuy7FvTpGHqYHi9zw3FMiea2tLnYVWPU6 D6VrGvN5NxRtTE8yW3eKrc1iU/0jQIVxHtUhHcodbPfvGqEtwuZKKbbknNj5GmzS pmhcYPguXDwlXL4m3IjxEvhPg7GZ7tjbhXlPK7ADu0EHxvjwesAcrKyCPddu0i9U e83bo3Q4vBT75WPVpSI1i6jJmC7ql4s3GZVvP2Qf6hzvu9fwSKbAra0ZLBFVKf25 WKwNK2eTVBcQOYytwXOQmdSV/hgFB/Y2T6+PHgnAjaDVeX3WqUuxggk6DpBY2V8g bORwsuZyweJviVZIOjbLx6RDeNJQWWSjUCojHvJyKzqffg23Fi8bAw== =+23m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Mark M. wrote:
I have every right as a citizen of country A to tell politicians of country B what they should or shouldn't do. This isn't about American Ideology; it's about natural rights.
There are no "natural" rights: a right is the contractual flipside of the an obligation, and is only meaningful in the context of a society - which is a thing that evolves continuously. Enzo (more with Hume and Hayek than with Descartes and Rousseau).
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, James Seng wrote:
Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad
And it is a pain for people whodevelop websites. To avoid offending those who are easilly offended, I either have to put up a stupid << and very misleading warning label >> or block them out. My solution is to put up the misleading, and incredibly stupid "warning" label. << Stupid & misleading, because although my pages do violate the CDA, and most other countries statues on what is acceptable content, the same text, if written would not even be given a second glance -- except maybe by the humint part of that country, who would use it for training purposes. >>
for artistic which rules out soft-porn. It may be surprising but many people (in Singapore) do welcome censorship sad to say.
And what will happen to Singapore when "their beloved leader" dies, especially if a result of an assasination?
passive manner. They _do not_ read every issue of every magazine available in Singapore. They only do so when there is enough complains. For example,
IOW, the newspapers, etc have to either not print stories that may cause complains, or print them, and go to jail. Censorship at its most vicious, and the most destructive of both the society it tries to appease, and the individual who doesn't conform to its sheere stupidity.
One more point. They know it is impossible to censor everything. It is
And passing laws that are unenforceably, is simply another way to ensure that laws in general are ignored, which leads to the increased instability of the regime, which leads to the precise opposite effect of what usually is intended. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com
On Sep 2, 7:06, James Seng wrote:
Subject: Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages!
Just let to add my comment in regard to this unforuntate discusssion.
To understand the sitution better, you should not impose America idealogy and perspection on how things to be done to Singapore. Singapore maybe young but there are certain culture too.
Let me see, our "American idealogy" is blinding us to the wonderful government of Singapore which jails and tortures its citizens for expressing political views which might call the government of Singapore into question. Check out, for example, this interview with the former Solicitor General of Singapore. http://www.unl.edu/scarlet/v5n33/v5n33qa.html Nothing earth shattering at this URL - just what we all expect from a police state. -- Mark Henderson -- mch@squirrel.com, henderso@netcom.com, markh@wimsey.bc.ca ViaCrypt PGP Key Fingerprint: 21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 unstrip for Solaris, Wimsey crypto archive, TECO, computer security links, change-sun-hostid, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ - http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/
James Seng wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages!
Just let to add my comment in regard to this unforuntate discusssion.
To understand the sitution better, you should not impose America idealogy and perspection on how things to be done to Singapore. Singapore maybe young but there are certain culture too.
Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad influence of it. We can go into the same discussion about whose responsibilty it is but before you do that, please bear in mind that this is Singapore.
America is much less different from Singapore in that respect than you might think. igor
On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
James Seng wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages!
Just let to add my comment in regard to this unforuntate discusssion.
To understand the sitution better, you should not impose America idealogy and perspection on how things to be done to Singapore. Singapore maybe young but there are certain culture too.
Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad influence of it. We can go into the same discussion about whose responsibilty it is but before you do that, please bear in mind that this is Singapore.
America is much less different from Singapore in that respect than you might think.
Actually, it is. I've been living in South-East Asia for almost one decade now, and I can tell you that most citizen are more socially conservative than their governments. A few years ago, the Singapore government had to backtrack from a very timid relaxation of rules on soft-porn movies due to the negative reactions from the public. In Singapore, the problem is compounded by the need of preserving good relationships with the even more conservative Malay minority, whose stances have strong backing by the two large neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia (the case I mentioned had prompted accusations to the government, by members of the opposition Workers Party, of planning the "corruption of the Islamic youth"). Of course, one may argue that the racial, social and religious relations are better handled the American way. That, however, is a controversial issue, and adopting confrontational cowboy attitudes is not going to make the social evolution any faster. Besides, I don't think that the Singapore government can really believe to be able of blocking access to anything on the net: a while ago I had the occasion of talking with some medium rank officers, and they sounded fully aware of the Internet technology and its implications - and willing to take the plunge. IMHO, the present measures represent more a gesture of appeasement to concerned social conservatives, not differently from the CDA in the US, than an attempt to control the flow of information. Enzo
Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
James Seng wrote:
Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad influence of it. We can go into the same discussion about whose responsibilty it is but before you do that, please bear in mind that this is Singapore.
America is much less different from Singapore in that respect than you might think.
Actually, it is. I've been living in South-East Asia for almost one decade now, and I can tell you that most citizen are more socially conservative than their governments.
... snippity snip ...
IMHO, the present measures
[in Singapore]
represent more a gesture of appeasement to concerned social conservatives, not differently from the CDA in the US, than an attempt to control the flow of information.
Ummm, sounds pretty close to what we have here... - Igor.
participants (10)
-
Brad Dolan -
Brian Davis -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Enzo Michelangeli -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
James Seng -
jonathon -
Mark C. Henderson -
Mark M. -
tcmay＠got.net