chan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jeff Chan) (12/31/88)
From article <13062@cup.portal.com>, by mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson): > In part, I felt my technical tips were amusing. But in equal part, I wasok > offended by your suggestion that you had information which you were holding > back from the Net for the protection of ourselves, society at large, yourself, > or whoever. Restriction of the free flow of information really sets me off. > You were waving a red flag in front of a bull. I consider these issues to be central to American society (and its problems) too (although very likely not central to sci.electronics, but I'm merely following up). "The free flow of information" is really freedom of speech which is one of the rights that makes America great. Of course it can be abused by people who are irresponsibile or who want to destroy resposibility, but I for one would not like to see freedom of speech curtailed in any way. "Protection of ourselves" reminds me of a favorite pet peeve akin to taking away candy from kids (which of course is now being done in the name of health). My pet peeve is the eventual banning of fireworks. This is relevant to the current discussion in that people who have access to "dangerous" fireworks usually learn to respect their power when the fireworks are safely used under adult supervision. I think there are many valuable lessons from such experience, not the least of which is learning to be responsible for your own actions (which you do sort of "own"). These devices are admittedly hazardous and are potentially dangerous *if a human being misuses them*, and they really drive home the idea that there are dangers in the world, but that through responsible action, we can control some of them. (I'm tempted to make a gun analogy, but a car can be and is more often used as a deadly weapon. I'm opossed to drinking (drugs) and driving but I hate seeing MADD pushing unconstitutional road blocks in the name of safety. Can anyone say "illegal search and seizure?" Does anyone remember learning about the actions of the British Army in colonial America? Can anyone say "restrictions on freedom of movement"?) People who grow up expecting and having "them" to protect us from this and that (why don't "they" do something about x) will likely have a less concrete understanding of their own potential for death and destruction. They are probably also less clear on their own potential for good and why the founding fathers demanded freedom *and* responsibility. > In fact, I consider the facts I disclosed to be rather obvious to the > thinking mind. Yes, and anyone who can't figure out how to make a bomb more lethal will probably blow him/herself up in the first few attempts anyway. (1/2 Darwinian :-) The original poster may not have had any evil intentions, but he should be made to realize that otherwise decent people who offensively harm other people *will* suffer punishment. (Prison would surely be a living hell.) But we don't know; perhaps the poster merely wanted to safely set off some fireworks at midnight on new years eve? It's actually too bad that the laws and spirit of the times are so opressive that someone can't just come out and ask about such an application. > Do the readers of this newsgroup prefer self-censorship, external > censorship, or no censorship at all? I suspect the vast majority prefer > no censorship at all. I prefer no censorship for the same reasons as above. People are only *truly free* when their words and actions are unrestricted; people can only be *truly responsible* when they have a clear understanding of the consequences of their unrestricted words and actions. (Is this a form of anarchism? If so I think it is not contrary to the American ethic.) If you are "protected" from ever having to consider the consequences of your own actions, you will have a hard time developing a moral conscience and clear judgement. (I don't know if I'm convincing anyone, but I most definitely appreciate the *opportunity to try*. Do you understand why?) My personal opinions, (*) Jeff C. Internet: chan@ames.arc.nasa.gov UUCP: ames!chan (*) This is a disclaimer claiming freedom of speech and protecting my employers {& employment :-}; it does not mean that I think what I say should be ignored as personal opinion. (I got into a long conversation about this on the net with someone else, so I thought I'd explain it here.)
jeffw@midas.TEK.COM (Jeff Winslow) (01/03/89)
Alright, who's the fuckhead who cross-posted from sci.electronics into talk.politics.misc? If anybody had any doubts that thoughtless dissemination of information can lead to major unpleasantness, those doubts will soon be put at rest. I want my low-volume newsgroup back!! (Followups are directed to talk.politics.misc, which I don't read. Take a hint.) Jeff Winslow